2017 (9) TMI 764 - HC - Customs

Request for inspection of public file with the Designated Authority (DA) - levy of anti dumping duty - delay in making request - Held that - the Petitioner claims that the Petitioner became aware of the Notification dated 17th February 2017 only in the second week of May, 2017 and therefore could not make the above request earlier. This explanation is not convincing. The Notification, having been gazzetted, is presumed to have been in the knowledge of the Petitioner. Further, the provisional duty during the period of investigation was already in force for more than a year and was to the knowledge of the Petitioner. It appears to the Court that, having missed its opportunity of filing its appeal in the CESTAT within time, the Petitioner was seeking to build an alibi to explain its delay and therefore applied for inspection of the DA s file - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved: Petitioner seeking direction to inspect public file for anti-dumping investigation; Request for list of interested parties and disclosure statement for appeal before CESTAT; Delay in making request for information; Bonafides of petitioner's request questioned.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought a direction to the Designated Authority (DA) to permit inspection of the public file related to an anti-dumping investigation on "Seamless tubes, pipes, and hollow profiles of iron, alloy, or non-alloy steel" from China PR. The initiation notification was issued on 8th July 2015, followed by the Final Finding on 9th December 2016 and a subsequent notification on 17th February 2017.

2. The court noted that the petitioner had the option to appeal before the Customs Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) against the Final Findings and Notification. However, the petitioner's request for information was made more than four months after the final notification, citing awareness of the notification only in May 2017. The court found the explanation unconvincing, stating that the notification was gazetted and the provisional duty during the investigation period was known to the petitioner.

3. The petitioner argued that without the addresses of interested parties, it could not file an appeal before CESTAT. However, the court observed that the names of interested parties were already provided in the Final Findings, mostly being companies whose addresses should have been easily ascertainable. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner's request to the DA, questioning the petitioner's bonafides.

4. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, indicating skepticism towards the petitioner's motives and the perceived attempt to use the request for file inspection as a means to explain the delay in filing the appeal before CESTAT. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely actions and the need for valid justifications in legal proceedings.