Tribunal upholds under-invoicing charges in appeal, clarifies jurisdiction.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order. The Tribunal clarified that its earlier order only set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order for the specific appellants, not all parties. It upheld the jurisdiction of the Additional Director DRI to issue the Show Cause Notice, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal found the charges of under-invoicing against the appellants valid, distinguishing the case from precedents and noting corroborating evidence. The decision was made on 12.04.2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the entire order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside by the Tribunal's earlier order dated 23.01.2018.
2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Director DRI to issue the Show Cause Notice.
3. Validity of the charges of under-invoicing against the appellants.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the entire order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside by the Tribunal's earlier order dated 23.01.2018:
The appellants argued that the Tribunal's earlier order set aside the entire order of the Commissioner (Appeals), thus their appeals should also be allowed. However, the Tribunal clarified that the scope of the appellate authority's order is limited to the appeals under consideration. The order dated 23.01.2018 set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order only for the appellants before that bench, not for all noticees. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Mafatlal Industries, emphasizing the finality of proceedings unless an order is set aside according to law. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the entire order was set aside.

2. Jurisdiction of the Additional Director DRI to issue the Show Cause Notice:
The appellants contended that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Additional Director DRI was without jurisdiction, citing various decisions. However, the Tribunal referred to the Bombay High Court's decision in Sunil Gupta, which upheld the jurisdiction of DRI officers to issue Show Cause Notices post the 2011 amendments to the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the Delhi High Court's decision, relied upon by the appellants, had been stayed by the Supreme Court. Hence, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' jurisdictional challenge.

3. Validity of the charges of under-invoicing against the appellants:
The appellants argued that their case was similar to the Tribunal's earlier decision in Mittal Pigments, where the charges of under-invoicing were quashed. However, the Tribunal distinguished the facts of the present case, noting that the appellants had directly imported goods from foreign suppliers, unlike in the Mittal Pigments case, where goods were purchased on High Sea Sales. The Tribunal also observed that the present case involved ad valorem duty, not fixed tariff rates as in the Mittal Pigments case. The Tribunal found sufficient corroboration for the charge of undervaluation, including the existence of two sets of invoices and admissions by the importer about mis-declaration of value. The Tribunal also referenced a similar case (Ramesh Dalmia and Others) where documentary evidence from foreign customs authorities was deemed reliable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants, upholding the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' arguments regarding the setting aside of the entire order, jurisdictional issues, or the validity of the under-invoicing charges. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 12.04.2019.

---