9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 299X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Customs, ICD, New Delhi demanding duty of Rs. 14,54,676/- as anti-dumping duty. The appellants, therefore, filed appeal challenging the show cause notice and the Notification No. 147/2003-Cus., dated 7-10-2003 and the final findings of the Designated Authority notified on 1st September, 2004 under Notification No. 14/31/2002-DGAD, dated 1-9-2003. They also filed Misc. application and stay application. 2. Their application and the appeal was opposed by the Domestic Industry on the ground that they have no locus standi for filing this appeal. 3. The appellants pleaded that they are the aggrieved person and, therefore, they have right to appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act and Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity reported in 2005 (187) E.L.T. 307 (Tribunal), where it was held that, the appellants in response to specific query made by the Bench could not produce any evidence to show that they made any import prior to the period of the investigation or during the period of investigation and even after investigation of the articles in question. In these circumstances, as the appellant is neither importer nor producer of articles in question hence cannot be considered as interested party and had also not participated in the proceedings before the Designated Authority, hence preliminary objection raised by the Domestic Industry has merit and the appellant is neither the interested party nor aggrieved by the imposition of duties on articles in questi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed on measuring tapes. The appeal along with the Misc. application is, therefore, dismissed. (Order dictated pronounced in open Court on 2-12-2005.) 8. [Order per : Justice R.K. Abichandani, President]. - Since in the prayer Clause (a) of the appeal memo dated 19-11-2003 the applicant had not challenged the final notification dated 7-10-2003, though it was placed on record, this application has been made for substituting that prayer. Learned Counsel for the respondents has no objection. Accordingly, prayer Clause (a) of the appeal memo dated 19-11-2003 is allowed to be substituted by the following prayer Clause (a) :- (a) To set aside the order of the Designated Authority dated 1-9-2003 set out in Notification No. 14/31/2002-DGA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
