9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1471 - HC - CustomsExtension of ADD - initiation of sunset review - Notification dated 24.7.2014 - HELD THAT - This Court was required to proceed on a premise as if the respondents had continued with Notification dated 24.7.2014 and the sunset review was rejected on that basis. Therefore, this order may not be in any manner construed as giving any new life to the Notification as the earlier order is based upon the premise stated in the petition but that cannot be treated as countenancing or infusing any life. In absence of any review petition or clarificatory petition, we need not further elaborate on this aspect. The present order shall not be treated as an order in review in absence of any proceedings to this effect nor the same may be treated as clarification. It goes without saying that if hiatus result on account of action or inaction affecting the parties legal rights and remedies, the same would always open to be urged as the omission on the part of concerned or the Court proceedings shall not in any manner prejudice the parties' legal right and their enforcement. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Direction to comply with the Order dated July 3, 2019. 2. Extension of anti-dumping duty. 3. Impleadment in Miscellaneous Civil Application. 4. Inaction of respondents in implementing court orders. 5. Legal implications of the Delhi High Court judgment on the Notification dated 24.07.2014. Detailed Analysis: 1. Direction to Comply with the Order Dated July 3, 2019: Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2019 was filed to seek a direction for the respondent to comply with the court's order dated 03.07.2019, which mandated the initiation of a sunset review and the extension of anti-dumping duty. The court had previously set aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2018 and directed the respondent authority to initiate a sunset review and extend the anti-dumping duty in accordance with the law. 2. Extension of Anti-Dumping Duty: The court's order dated 03.07.2019 directed the respondent to extend the anti-dumping duty, which was due to expire on 23.07.2019. The court emphasized that the inaction of the respondent would render the order infructuous, thereby necessitating the Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2019 for the extension of the anti-dumping duty. 3. Impleadment in Miscellaneous Civil Application: Civil Application No.2 of 2019 was filed seeking impleadment in the Miscellaneous Civil Application to resist the prayer for compliance with the order dated 03.07.2019. The application also sought to modify the reliefs granted in the judgment dated 03.07.2019. The court noted that the application was not restricted to impleadment but also contained prayers that expanded its scope. 4. Inaction of Respondents in Implementing Court Orders: The court observed that the respondents had failed to comply with the direction contained in the order dated 03.07.2019. The court referenced previous orders where similar inaction had occurred, emphasizing that the respondents could not avoid compliance with court orders. The court criticized the respondents for their recalcitrant approach and failure to seek appropriate relief or clarification from the court. 5. Legal Implications of the Delhi High Court Judgment on the Notification Dated 24.07.2014: The court discussed the impact of the Delhi High Court's judgment dated 31.05.2018, which quashed the Notification dated 24.07.2014. The respondents continued to levy and collect anti-dumping duty despite the Delhi High Court's judgment. The court noted that the respondents did not raise any contention based on the Delhi High Court's judgment during the proceedings of Special Civil Application No.4461 of 2019. The court emphasized that the respondents' inaction and the issuance of an Office Memorandum dated 18.07.2019 could not justify their failure to comply with the court's order dated 03.07.2019. Conclusion: The court rejected both Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1 of 2019 and Civil Application No.2 of 2019. The court emphasized that the respondents' inaction and issuance of the Office Memorandum could not render the court's order infructuous. The court reiterated that the respondents had a duty to comply with the court's order and could not avoid compliance through inaction or contradictory stands. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to judicial directions and the consequences of failing to do so.
|
