2019 (1) TMI 1798 - AT - Customs

Evasion of SAD - warehousing of goods with intent to evade Additional Duty of Customs leviable under Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act 1975 - HELD THAT - There are no reason to interfere in the impugned order inasmuch as this Tribunal has already held in the case of M/S LLOYD ELECTRIC ENGINEERING LTD. ZAMIL AIR CONDITIONERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX 2018 (3) TMI 567 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD that the present appellants were helping the importers in evasion of said SAD by allowing them to warehouse goods in their warehouse and subsequently allowing clearances of the same without payment of said SAD. Appeal dismissed - decided againsy appellant.

Summary

Issues involved: Allegations of aiding importers in evasion of Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) at a Free Trade Warehousing Zone.

Analysis:
1. Issue of aiding in evasion of SAD: The case involved allegations against the appellant, a warehousing operator in a Free Trade Warehousing Zone, for aiding importers in evading the Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The impugned orders confirmed that the appellants facilitated importers in avoiding payment of SAD, leading to demands being raised against the importers or penalties being imposed. The Tribunal noted that the appellants allowed importers to warehouse goods without paying the required SAD, as established in a previous case involving similar circumstances.

2. Tribunal's decision: After considering the arguments presented by the Revenue's representative and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. Citing a precedent case involving similar conduct, the Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed on the appellant for aiding in the evasion of SAD. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's actions were in violation of the Customs regulations and upheld the impugned order, thereby rejecting all the appeals brought forth by the appellant.

3. Final ruling: In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the penalties imposed on the appellant for assisting importers in evading the Additional Duty of Customs (SAD). The decision was based on the established pattern of conduct by the appellant, as evidenced in the case records and supported by a previous judicial ruling. The Tribunal's decision underscored the importance of compliance with Customs regulations and upheld the penalties as a deterrent against aiding in the evasion of duties.