2020 (2) TMI 394 - AT - Customs

Anti-dumping duty - time limitation - an appeal can be filed before the Tribunal within 90 days of the passing of the order under appeal - Section 9C(i) of the of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - HELD THAT - As the appeal was filed beyond a period of 90 days from 09 April, 2019, it was accompanied by an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Notification was issued by the Central Government on 09 April, 2019. The appeal should have, therefore, been filed within 90 days from this day as contemplated under Section 9C(2) of the Act. The appeal was, however, filed only on 07 October, 2019. The normal period prescribed for filing the appeal expired on 08 July, 2019. All that has been stated in the application that has been filed for condoning the delay is that, a Writ Petition was filed in the Punjab Haryana High Court against the Notification dated 09 April, 2019 by a related and an unrelated party which Petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 05 September, 2019 - the date of filing of Writ Petition has not been mentioned in the delay condonation application, but even otherwise there is no reason as to why the Appellant could not have filed the appeal during the pendency of the Writ Petition filed by other parties. We are not satisfied with the explanation offered by the Appellant for condoning the delay. The delay condonation application is, accordingly, rejected - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Delay in filing appeal under Section 9C(i) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 based on Anti Dumping duty Notification dated 09 April, 2019. Application for condonation of delay due to related party's Writ Petition.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed beyond the 90-day period from the Anti Dumping duty Notification date. The Appellant sought condonation of delay citing a related party's Writ Petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The Writ Petition was withdrawn on 05 September, 2019, allowing parties to pursue appellate remedies. The Appellant justified the delay due to legal processes, management meetings, and engagement of lawyers post-Writ Petition withdrawal. The Designated Authority and Respondents opposed the delay condonation, arguing statutory remedies were available and timely utilized by others. The Tribunal noted the Appellant's failure to file the appeal during the Writ Petition pendency, contrasting with another party's timely appeal filing. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where a similar delay condonation request was rejected. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Appellant's explanation unsatisfactory and rejected the delay condonation application. The rejection did not affect another party's appeal. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed on 13 December, 2019.