2020 (6) TMI 66 - AT - Customs

Anti Dumping Duty - condonation of delay in filing appeal - Section 9C (2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Notification dated 17 February 2017 - HELD THAT - The Appeal should have been filed by the Appellant within 90 days from the date of the order i.e. within 90 days from 17 February 2017. The only reason given by the Appellant for not filing the Appeal within the stipulated period is that it was not aware of the addresses of the parties nor documents were made available to them. The request of the Appellant was specifically considered and rejected by the Delhi High Court and this order has attained finality on the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, not open to the Appellant to again raise the same plea before the Tribunal in the application filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It is not satisfying that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Appeal before the Tribunal within time. The delay application is, accordingly, rejected. Appeal dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal.
2. Awareness and participation in the investigation.
3. Inspection of the public file and access to documents.
4. Legal remedies and procedural aspects.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The appellant filed an Anti Dumping Appeal on 23 April 2018 against the Notification dated 17 February 2017. The appeal was delayed beyond the 90-day period stipulated under Section 9C (2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Tribunal examined whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. The appellant argued that the delay was neither willful nor deliberate, attributing it to the time taken to obtain necessary documents and pursue legal remedies.

2. Awareness and Participation in the Investigation:
The appellant claimed to have become aware of the imposition of final duties in the second week of May 2017. Due to non-participation in the investigation, the appellant sought documents from the Designated Authority to assess the feasibility of challenging the duties. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant had been paying provisional duties since the preliminary findings were published on 17 May 2016, indicating awareness of the ongoing anti-dumping investigation.

3. Inspection of the Public File and Access to Documents:
The appellant's counsel contacted the Designated Authority in May 2017 for inspection of the public file, which was formally requested on 27 June 2017. This request was denied on 10 July 2017. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed on 6 September 2017. The High Court found the appellant's explanation for delay unconvincing, noting that the notification was gazetted and presumed to be known to the appellant. The High Court also observed that the appellant's request for inspection appeared to be an attempt to build an alibi for the delay.

4. Legal Remedies and Procedural Aspects:
The appellant challenged the High Court's decision in the Supreme Court, which dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 19 March 2018 but allowed the appellant to approach the Tribunal with a delay condonation application. The Tribunal considered the time spent in pursuing remedies in the High Court and Supreme Court but concluded that the entire period of limitation had expired before the writ petition was filed in the High Court. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's claim of not knowing the addresses of interested parties was not convincing, as noted by the High Court.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the delay condonation application, stating that the appellant was not prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the stipulated period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal also dismissed all other miscellaneous applications.

← Previous Next →