2019 (4) TMI 1098 - AT - Customs

Evasion of SAD - Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - HELD THAT - Tribunal have already held in the case of LLOYD Electric Engineering Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax, Noida-II 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 against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Request for Adjournment, Allegations of aiding in evasion of Additional Duty of Customs, Impugned orders

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD involved the issue of a request for adjournment by the appellant, who was identified as Arshiya Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the appeals were taken together for decision as the issue involved was the same, although the impugned orders were different. The appellant was accused of aiding various importers in the evasion of Additional Duty of Customs, also known as SAD, leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal mentioned that the importers either paid the SAD subsequently or faced demands and penalties. Referring to a previous case involving similar allegations, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere in the impugned orders, as it was established that the appellants were facilitating the evasion of SAD by allowing importers to warehouse goods without payment of the duty. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld all the impugned orders and rejected all the appeals presented by the appellant.

In this judgment, the Tribunal addressed the issue of allegations against the appellant regarding aiding importers in the evasion of Additional Duty of Customs. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant, Arshiya Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd., operated a Free Trade Warehousing Zone at Khurja and was accused of facilitating importers in evading the duty. The Tribunal noted that the importers either paid the duty subsequently or faced demands and penalties. By examining the case records and referring to a previous ruling involving similar circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to interfere in the impugned orders. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's actions were deemed as assisting in the evasion of SAD, as evidenced by allowing importers to warehouse goods without fulfilling duty obligations. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and rejected the appeals.

The judgment also addressed the issue of the appellant's request for adjournment. Despite the appellant's request being rejected, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the learned representative of Revenue, Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, and reviewed the case records. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellants, in this case, were accused of aiding importers in evading the Additional Duty of Customs. By considering the allegations in the show cause notice and the impugned orders, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere in the impugned orders. The Tribunal cited a previous case to support its decision, emphasizing the appellant's role in allowing importers to evade the duty. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld all the impugned orders and rejected the appeals, thereby dismissing the appellant's request for adjournment and affirming the allegations of aiding in the evasion of Additional Duty of Customs.