2005 (2) TMI 133 - SC - Customs

Anti-dumping - Alternative remedy - Appointment of president for disposal of appeal - Held that - President of the Tribunal is expressedly authorised to delegate his functions under the Act to the Vice-President of the Appellate Tribunal. By Notification dated 16-7-1999 the then President of the Tribunal then known as the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.129(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 delegated his power and functions qua President in his absence, whether on leave or otherwise to the senior most Vice-President to perform such of the functions of the President as might be necessary for the efficient functioning of the Tribunal. Therefore until the President is appointed it would be open to the Senior Vice-President to discharge the functions of the President - Matter remitted to CESTAT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to new shipper review and provisional assessment notifications.
2. Appellants' objection to relegate to alternative remedy under Customs Tariff Act.
3. Delay in appointment of President of Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
4. Authority of Vice-President to discharge President's functions in absence of appointment.
5. Disposal of appeal and direction to pursue before CESTAT.

Analysis:

1. The appellants challenged a Notification initiating a new shipper review under the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 for rectified porcelain tiles imports. The Designated Authority sought to review an earlier anti-dumping duty imposition on imports from China and UAE. The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the notifications, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

2. The Solicitor General suggested relegate the appellants to the Tribunal for an alternative remedy, but the appellants objected citing High Court observations and the non-constitution of the Tribunal under Section 9C(5) of the Customs Tariff Act.

3. Despite the completion of proceedings by the Designated Authority, the delay in appointing a President of CESTAT was highlighted. The Union of India assured that the appointment would be made shortly, emphasizing the absence of a President at present.

4. The Solicitor General pointed out that the President can delegate functions to the Vice-President as per Section 129(5) of the Customs Act. Until the President is appointed, the Senior Vice-President can discharge necessary functions for the Tribunal's efficient operation.

5. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal, allowing the appellants to pursue all contentions before CESTAT without influence from the High Court's judgment. The directive was to expedite the decision-making process and preferably resolve the matter by a specified date.