9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n maintain application of this nature. 2. Proceedings for imposing anti-dumping duty on Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) exported from or originating in Korea, among other countries, was taken up by the Designated Authority constituted under the Anti-dumping provisions of the Customs Tariff Act. Pursuant to the finding arrived at by the Designated Authority, Government of India issued notification levying duty on such goods imported from Korea. The said notification was challenged before this Tribunal in appeals C/264/99-AD and C/332/99-AD. Those appeals were disposed of by this Tribunal on 2-2-2000 by Final Order Nos. 20 and 21/2000-AD. As per that order, the anti-dumping duty fixed by the Central Govt. in the notification was refixed as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passing of the exparte order thereby staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 26-4-2001. 4. Once anti-dumping duty is imposed by notification issued by the Central Govt. or as per the amended notification issued under the direction of the CEGAT, duty is to be levied by the officers of the Customs department, at the time of clearing the goods imported. Those actions of the Customs Officers in imposing duty under that notification will be actions on the part of the Customs Officers under the Customs Act, 1962. The said actions of the Customs Officers are open to challenge before the higher authorities or forums in terms of the provisions contained in the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act. Section 9A(8) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions or not. 5. Locus standi of a party to approach this Tribunal against the order of Customs authorities came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd., 1997 (91) E.L.T. 502. Their Lordships specifically opined that a rival in the business of the importer of the consignment cannot be considered to be a person aggrieved by the adjudicating order of the Collector of Customs for approaching this Tribunal. The petitioner before us is only a rival to the appellant in business and he is not interested in the goods sought to be cleared under the three Bills of Entry. Consequently, he is not a person entitled to move the petition of this nature. The petitioner herein cannot a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
