9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 841 - AT - CustomsCondonation of delay in filing this Anti-Dumping Appeal - no reliefs have been claimed for setting aside the Customs Notification dated September 12, 2017 issued by the Central Government or the final findings dated August 1, 2017 issued by the Designated Authority - section 9C of Customs Tariff Act - HELD THAT - The appellant, for no justifiable reason, did not challenge the Customs Notification dated September 12, 2017 within the time stipulated in section 9C of the Tariff Act nor did the appellant take immediate steps for implementation for the first corrigendum issued by the Designated Authority on December 19, 2017. This does not reflect the normal behaviour of a person having all the resources to take recourse to legal proceedings. In fact, Euro Chem group, which is the parent group of the appellant, in beginning of 2018 had threatened going to Court for elimination of the anti-dumping duty, but still for a long period of two years, the appellant kept quiet. The appellant has been thoroughly negligent and there is no good reason as to why the delay should be condoned on the mere asking the appellant. It needs to be noted that even after having been informed by the Designated Authority that the representation filed on behalf of the appellant for specifying Nil rate of duty could be accepted for the reason that the final findings had dealt with the issue, the appellant repeatedly filed representations. These representations were for the same relief which had been denied to the appellant by the Designated Authority and, therefore, the said explanation offered for the delay cannot be accepted. The appellant concealed material relevant facts from the Tribunal since the appellant has not stated that four Anti-Dumping Appeals had been filed to assail the Customs Notification. The appellant was impleaded as a respondent and these appeals had been dismissed by the Tribunal and the Special Leave to Appeal filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed. The facts stated leave no manner of doubt that the appellant has not been able to satisfy the Tribunal that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time - The Delay Condonation Application, therefore, deserves to be rejected and is rejected - COD Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Application for condonation of delay in filing the anti-dumping appeal. 2. Validity of the second corrigendum dated April 25, 2018. 3. Issuance of a Customs Notification to give effect to the first corrigendum dated December 19, 2017. 4. Compliance with principles of natural justice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Application for Condonation of Delay: - The appellant filed an application for condonation of delay under section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which mandates an appeal to be filed within 90 days of the order. The appeal was filed on December 1, 2020, resulting in delays of approximately three years, two years and nine months, and two years and five months, depending on the relief sought. - The appellant argued that the delay was due to ongoing representations and internal deliberations, believing their requests would be addressed by the Designated Authority. The appellant's parent group, EuroChem Group AG, had approached the Trade Representative of the Russian Federation in India for comments on the withdrawal of the first corrigendum, further contributing to the delay. - The Tribunal found that the appellant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, noting that the appellant was aware of the available remedies and failed to take timely action. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant concealed material facts, such as the filing of four appeals by other parties challenging the Customs Notification dated September 12, 2017, in which the appellant was a respondent. 2. Validity of the Second Corrigendum: - The appellant contended that the second corrigendum dated April 25, 2018, which withdrew the first corrigendum, was issued without notice and in violation of principles of natural justice. - The Tribunal noted that the Designated Authority had initially issued the first corrigendum specifying a 'NIL' rate of duty for the appellant, but the Central Government did not issue a Customs Notification to give effect to this recommendation. The second corrigendum withdrew the first corrigendum and corrected typographical errors in the final findings. - The Tribunal found that the Designated Authority's decision to withdraw the first corrigendum was consistent with its final findings, which had already addressed the appellant's request for an individual dumping margin. 3. Issuance of Customs Notification: - The appellant sought a direction for the Union of India to issue a Customs Notification to give effect to the first corrigendum dated December 19, 2017. - The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not take timely steps to challenge the Customs Notification dated September 12, 2017, or to seek implementation of the first corrigendum. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's repeated representations did not justify the delay in filing the appeal. 4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice: - The appellant argued that the second corrigendum was issued without notice, violating principles of natural justice. - The Tribunal found that the Designated Authority had provided sufficient reasons for withdrawing the first corrigendum and that the appellant was aware of the final findings, which had addressed their concerns. Conclusion: - The Tribunal rejected the application for condonation of delay, emphasizing that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and concealed material facts. - The appeal was dismissed due to the inordinate delay in filing and lack of sufficient cause to condone the delay. - The Tribunal upheld the validity of the second corrigendum and found no violation of principles of natural justice.
|
