9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 467 - AT - CustomsMaintainability of appeal - continuation of ADD - sunset review - acetone, imported from Japan and Thailand - extension of period - N/N. 16/2015-Cus-ADD dated 22.04.2015 - orders by the Department of Revenue missing - Held that - In the absence of any order or Notification issued by the Department of Revenue in terms of Customs Tariff Act or the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995, no appeal lies with the Tribunal - similar issue decided in the case of Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. & Others 2017 (9) TMI 63 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that there is no determination of ADD levy by notification as published in the official gazette by the Central Government under Rule 18 and, as such, the appeals under Section 9C in the present case are not maintainable - appeal dismissed being not maintainable.
Issues:
Appeals against final findings of Designated Authority (DA) regarding anti-dumping duty on acetone and phenol from Japan and Thailand. Delay in filing appeals. Maintainability of appeals under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. Analysis: The appeals were filed by M/s. SI Group India Pvt. Ltd. against final findings of the Designated Authority (DA) regarding anti-dumping duty on acetone and phenol from Japan and Thailand. The appeals were delayed by 125 days, but the admissibility of the appeals was considered in terms of legal provisions of Section 9C of the Act. The DA had recommended no need for continued imposition of anti-dumping duty on the subject goods, which was accepted by the Ministry of Finance based on RTI responses. The appellants contested the DA's findings, but the DA and the Revenue Department argued against the maintainability of the appeals, stating that the DA is a recommending authority and no orders by the Revenue Department were issued for appeal under Section 9C. The Tribunal considered the maintainability of the appeals and referred to a previous case to conclude that appeals against the DA's recommendatory findings are not maintainable without a determination of anti-dumping duty by the Central Government. The absence of any order or notification by the Revenue Department under the Customs Tariff Act led to the dismissal of the appeals as not maintainable. In both cases, the DA recommended no continuation of anti-dumping duty on acetone and phenol from Japan and Thailand. The Ministry of Finance accepted these recommendations based on RTI responses. The appellants challenged the DA's findings, but the Tribunal ruled that appeals against the DA's recommendations are not maintainable without a determination of anti-dumping duty by the Central Government. The absence of any order or notification by the Revenue Department under the Customs Tariff Act rendered the appeals not maintainable, leading to their dismissal. The appeals were dismissed in line with the previous Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the need for a formal determination of anti-dumping duty by the Central Government for appeals to be considered under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act.
|
