Introduction
Customs enforcement in India today runs on digital data. Import-export documentation, invoices, emails, WhatsApp chats, tally data and accounting software files are routinely seized from laptops, servers, mobile phones and hard drives during investigations under the Customs Act, 1962. Whether that data can actually be used against an importer or exporter depends on one provision: Section 138-C, Customs Act, 1962. This piece breaks down the statutory text, the case law that has shaped it, and the current legal position after the Supreme Court’s 2026 ruling in Revenue Intelligence Directorate v. Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex (P) Ltd., (2026) 1 SCC 756.
Why Electronic Records Trigger Evidentiary Scrutiny in Customs Cases
Paper documents can be produced in original form and proved through ordinary rules of evidence. Electronic data cannot. It can be altered, selectively extracted or reproduced without leaving a visible trace, which is why Indian law has built a separate statutory gateway for admitting computer-generated records. In customs adjudication, this matters enormously because most duty-evasion cases under Section 28, Customs Act, 1962 (recovery of duties not levied, short-levied or erroneously refunded) now rest on data pulled from seized electronic devices rather than physical files.
The Seizure Power: Section 105, Customs Act, 1962
Section 105, Customs Act, 1962 gives a proper officer the authority to search premises and seize documents, things, laptops, desktops, mobile phones, servers and storage media believed to be useful or relevant to proceedings under the Act. The seizure of a device is only the starting point. The real evidentiary battle begins when the department seeks to rely on a printout, report or extracted file taken from that device rather than the device itself.
Section 138-C, Customs Act, 1962: The Gateway for Computer Output as Evidence
Section 138-C, Customs Act, 1962 governs when a computer output, a printout, copy or any other reproduction of electronic data can be treated as a “document” and admitted in customs proceedings, even though the original electronic source is not physically produced. The provision does not automatically admit every printout. It sets four conditions that a computer output must satisfy, and it requires the party relying on the record to demonstrate that the source computer was functioning properly and was regularly used for the activity in question during the relevant period.
Certification Under Section 138-C(4): The Central Safeguard
Section 138-C(4), Customs Act, 1962 requires a certificate identifying the electronic record, describing how it was produced, giving particulars of the device or system used to generate it, and confirming that the statutory conditions were met. This certificate functions as a stand-in for the original electronic source, it is what allows an officer, adjudicating authority or tribunal to trust a printout in the absence of the underlying hard drive or server being placed before it. Without this certificate, or without circumstances that substitute for it, a computer output ordinarily cannot be read into evidence.
Section 138-C and Its Parity with Evidence Law: 65-B to Section 63, BSA 2023
Section 138-C, Customs Act, 1962 is structured almost identically to Section 65-B, Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Since 1 July 2024, the Evidence Act, 1872 stands repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), and the certification requirement for electronic records now appears in Section 63, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Because Section 138-C is pari materia with this provision, Supreme Court rulings interpreting Section 65-B (and now Section 63, BSA) directly govern how customs authorities, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), and courts approach electronic evidence under the Customs Act.
The Judicial Timeline: From Certainty to Confusion and Back
Navjot Sandhu (2005): The Permissive Starting Point
In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, the Supreme Court allowed electronic records to be proved through the general law of secondary evidence, holding that a Section 65-B certificate was not the only route to admissibility if the record was otherwise duly proved through oral and documentary evidence.
Anvar P.V. (2014): Section 65-B Declared a Complete Code
Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473, overturned this position. The Supreme Court held that Section 65-B, Evidence Act, 1872 is a complete code for the admissibility of electronic records, and that a computer output is inadmissible without a certificate under Section 65-B(4). Recourse to the general provisions on secondary evidence was expressly excluded.
Tomaso Bruno (2015) and Shafhi Mohammad (2018): A Conflicting Line of Authority
Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 178, dealing with non-production of CCTV footage, described electronic evidence as the best evidence available in appropriate cases, and was read by later courts as introducing flexibility. Shafhi Mohammad v. State of H.P., (2018) 2 SCC 801, went further, holding that the Section 65-B(4) certificate requirement was procedural and could be dispensed with where the party relying on the evidence did not control the device that generated it. Together, these judgments created genuine uncertainty over whether certification was mandatory or negotiable.
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar (2020): Mandatory Certification Restored
A larger Bench resolved this conflict in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1. The Court reaffirmed Section 65-B as a complete code, expressly overruled Shafhi Mohammad and Tomaso Bruno on this point, and held that a computer output is inadmissible unless Section 65-B is satisfied. It drew one important distinction: if the original electronic device itself is produced and proved in court, no Section 65-B(4) certificate is required; the certificate is mandatory only when a copy or printout is relied upon in place of the device. The Court also permitted the certificate to be furnished at a later stage where it could not be secured despite best efforts, subject to judicial discretion.
The 2026 Development: Revenue Intelligence Directorate v. Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex (P) Ltd.
Revenue Intelligence Directorate v. Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex (P) Ltd., (2026) 1 SCC 756, applied this framework directly to Section 138-C, Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal below had treated the absence of a formal certificate as automatically fatal to admissibility. The Supreme Court reversed that finding. It held that “due compliance” with Section 138-C(4) does not require a certificate in a rigid or strict form. On the facts, data had been extracted from the seized devices in the presence of the concerned persons, the extraction process was contemporaneously recorded, and the contents of the electronic records were acknowledged in statements recorded under Section 108, Customs Act, 1962 that were never retracted. On this factual matrix, the Court held that Section 138-C(4) stood substantially complied with, and the absence of a formal certificate did not render the evidence inadmissible.
What “Due Compliance” Under Section 138-C(4) Now Means
The 2026 ruling does not dilute the certification requirement laid down in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar. It clarifies that “due compliance” is assessed on the factual matrix surrounding seizure and extraction, not solely on whether a certificate exists in a particular format. Factors that now carry evidentiary weight include:
- Whether data extraction from the seized device took place in the presence of the importer, exporter or their authorised representative.
- Whether the extraction process was recorded contemporaneously, typically through a panchnama.
- Whether the contents of the extracted electronic records were acknowledged in a statement recorded under Section 108, Customs Act, 1962, and whether that statement was later retracted.
- Whether the party against whom the evidence is used raised timely objections to the extraction process or disputed the authenticity of the records.
Conclusion: From Rigid Form to Substantive Reliability
Electronic evidence law under Indian customs legislation has moved through three distinct phases: the permissive approach in Navjot Sandhu, the strict formalism of Anvar P.V. and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, and now a more contextual standard under Suresh Kumar. Certification under Section 138-C(4), Customs Act, 1962 remains the statutory default and the safest route to admissibility. What has changed is that its absence is no longer automatically fatal, adjudicating and appellate authorities may now look at the surrounding facts of seizure, extraction and acknowledgment to determine whether “due compliance” exists in substance. As electronic records increasingly form the evidentiary backbone of customs enforcement, both departments and assessees need to treat the search and seizure stage, not the hearing stage, as the point where admissibility is effectively decided.
The growing reliance on digital records examined in Customer Data Protection in Indian Financial Sector also raises important questions around the admissibility and evidentiary value of electronic evidence in regulatory proceedings.
