9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ead with Notification No. 82/2001-Cus., dated 30-7-2001 issued by the Central Government imposing anti-dumping duty on Theophylline and Caffeine originating in and exported from the European Union and when imported into India at the rate specified in the notification. 2. When the appeal came up for hearing on the first occasion on 19-11-2001 a preliminary objection was raised by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Designated Authority that the appeal at the instance of M/s. Ahimsa Mines and Minerals Ltd. is not maintainable as it is not aggrieved by the impugned finding and notification. The same objection was raised before us when the matter came on subsequent dates also. 3. It is the contention of the Designated Authority tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... versely affected by the notification imposing anti-dumping duty. In support of its contention that any interested party can maintain an appeal, the appellant places reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. CEGAT - 1990 (50) E.L.T. 234 (Del.). 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Designated Authority that the decision relied upon by the appellant was reversed by the Apex Court in Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 502 (S.C.). The scope of the term 'person aggrieved' referred in Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 was considered in detail and it was held that the right of appeal is confined only to parties to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot accepted the claim of the appellant that it is an interested party as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Anti Dumping Rules. In any view of the matter, since we take the view that the appellant is not aggrieved by the order impugned, the appeal at its instance is not maintainable, it is not necessary for us to go into the issue whether it is an interested party. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal as not maintainable at the instance of the appellant. 7. Now we consider the cross-objection filed by one of the importers. We may observe that apart from filing cross-objection on 1-1-2002 there is no representation before us on behalf of the party who filed the cross-objection when the matter was taken up for hearing. No provision of law is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
