2023 (3) TMI 1294 - HC - Customs

Time Limitation - levy of Anti Dumping Duty - whether the learned CESTAT was right in rejecting the petitioner s appeal on the ground of limitation in the given facts and circumstances of the case? - HELD THAT - Undisputedly, the appellant s appeal was delayed by a period of ninety-one days, as noted by the learned CESTAT. However, it appears that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not raising any other ground but merely sought to keep his earlier appeal alive, whereby the appellant had challenged the levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on two chemicals, namely, Vinylidene Fluoride and Hexafluoropropylene Polymer. The learned CESTAT had faulted the petitioner for not participating in the proceedings for the sunset review. However, the petitioner had explained that he was not aggrieved by levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on the product Fluoroelastomers; the appellant s limited grievance was with regard to two chemicals, which were sought to be included within the net of Anti- Dumping Duty. It is considered apposite that the impugned order be set aside and the appellant s appeal be restored before the learned CESTAT for consideration on merits - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Exemption application
2. Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal
3. Appeal challenging the rejection of Anti-Dumping Condonation of Delay Application

Exemption Application:
The exemptions were allowed, subject to all just exceptions, and the application stands disposed of.

Condonation of Delay:
The delay of 10 days in re-filing the appeal was condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application, and the application stands disposed of.

Appeal challenging the rejection of Anti-Dumping Condonation of Delay Application:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of its application by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), concerning the levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on two products. The CESTAT rejected the appeal as it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The appellant argued that it had already filed an appeal challenging the levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on the same products, which was pending before the CESTAT. The notification extending the levy of Anti-Dumping Duty was challenged by the appellant as well. The main question was whether the CESTAT was correct in rejecting the appeal based on limitation. The High Court found that the CESTAT failed to appreciate that the appellant was not raising any new ground but was seeking to keep the earlier appeal alive. The Court noted that the appellant's limited grievance was with regard to two specific chemicals, not the entire product category. Therefore, the High Court set aside the CESTAT's order and restored the appeal before the CESTAT for consideration on merits. The respondent suggested certain terms and costs, and the Court agreed that the appellant must deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 with the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, within two weeks for the appeal to be restored before the CESTAT.