2022 (2) TMI 1241 - AT - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - exclusion of the period during when the writ petition remained pending in the High Court or not - Extension of anti-dumping duty for a period of five years from the date of publication of the Notification - HELD THAT - It is no doubt true that though the appeal is required to filed before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of issue of the Notification and said period of 90 days had expired before the writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court on 30 November 2016 but the time taken for filing the writ petition has been adequately explained in paragraph 6 of the application. After the dismissal of the writ petition and after the certified copy of the order was ready only two days time was taken by the applicant to file the appeal. The applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the stipulated period. The delay is accordingly condoned and the application is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to anti-dumping duty extension notification; Delay in filing appeal before Tribunal; Condoning delay application.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed before the Tribunal to challenge the Notification extending anti-dumping duty for five years. The appellant had initially filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court but withdrew it to pursue appeal before the Tribunal. The High Court granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy and excluded the period from the date of filing the writ petition to the date of obtaining certified copy for limitation purposes. The appeal was filed within two days of obtaining the certified copy, with a delay of 24 days due to the pendency of the writ petition.

The appellant provided reasons for the delay in filing the writ petition, citing the need for substantial time to draft it, calculate dumping margins, and address confidentiality issues. The Domestic Industry and other respondents opposed condoning the delay, arguing that only the period during the writ petition's pendency should be excluded. However, the Tribunal found the reasons in the application satisfactory and allowed the condonation of delay, stating that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated period. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and a regular number was allotted to the appeal.