9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dated:- 23-11-2010 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Dr. C. Satapathy, Shri D.N. Panda, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Ameet Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. Shri Rajesh Sharma with Mrs. Reena Khair, Advocates, for the Interested Parties. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. - Heard Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate for the applicants. The respondents are represented by Shri Ameet Singh, Advocate and submitted that the Tribunal may pass an appropriate order. 2.By the present application, the applicants are seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal. 3. The facts as stated in the application in support of the plea for condonation of delay are that the applicants being aggrieved by initiation and the imposition of anti-dumping duty vide Notification dated 21-11-2008 preferred Writ Petition being W.P. (Civil) No. 9005 of 2008 in the Hon ble High Court of Delhi, in which the Hon ble High Court issued notice to the parties. The respondents No. 2, the Designated Authority, issued final findings on 27th February 2009 and recommended to the Central Government to impose anti-dumping duty on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court cannot arise as the appeal could not be filed unless the party has taken note of what has been stated in the order of the High Court. 5. To the specific query as to whether the order of the High Court was passed in the open Court or not, Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate for the applicants submitted that he was is not aware of the same as he was not present in the High Court on that day. Perusal of the application also does not disclose any statement in that regard. However, it is a practice in all the High Courts to pass orders in the open Court and even if the order is reserved, pronouncement thereof is necessarily to be made in the open Court. 6. Perusal of the copy of the order of High Court placed on record discloses that the order having been written and pronounced on the very same day that is on 26-8-2010. 7. The relevant portion of the Hon ble High Court read thus - Regard being had to the aforesaid factual scenario, we are inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal within a period of three weeks and as conceded to by the learned Counsel for the respondents, they would not oppose the prayer for condonation of delay. The Tribunal is directed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er limit of three weeks from the date of the order passed on 26-8-2010 but further required the counsel for the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 27-9-2010. It cannot be disputed that 27-9-2010 was beyond the period of three weeks from 26-8-2010. Such a direction was given by the Hon ble High Court bearing in mind the further direction which has been given to the Tribunal that Tribunal should dispose of the appeal on merits within eight weeks from the date of presentation of the appeal. Therefore, the filing of the appeal was necessarily to be prior to 27th September 2010 and that too within three weeks. Obviously, the period of three weeks could not have been expected to expire after 27-9-2010. It had to expire before 27-9-10. Therefore, if the appeal was required to be filed within three weeks from 26-8-2010, it was necessary for the appellants to file the same latest by 16-9-2010. Being so, the appeal, if so filed, was required to be disposed of on or before 16-11-2010 i.e. within eight weeks from the date of filing of the appeal. Exactly for the same reason, the counsel was required to appear before the Tribunal on 27-9-2010 in the said appeal. Appearance of the Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Court are that the Tribunal is expected to condone the delay and not to throw the appeal at the threshold on the ground of limitation and further to decide the appeal on merits. Undoubtedly, the said direction cannot be read in vacuum but the said direction is qualified with the requirement of filing of the appeal within the period prescribed by the Hon ble High Court. The direction is preceded by the said condition. Being so, the direction cannot be presumed to apply to a case where the party chooses to file the appeal at his sweetwill and at his convenience and not as per the directions of the Hon ble High Court. 14. Every direction of higher authority has to be understood in the facts of each case wherein such direction is given. Bearing the same in mind, the direction in question cannot be construed to mean that Tribunal is directed to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed by the Hon ble High Court. Certainly, the matter in that regard will have to be decided in accordance with the provisions of law applicable to the matters filed beyond the period of limitation. 15. Section 9C(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which applies to the appeal against the Notificatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mixed question of law and facts. Therefore, to ascertain whether the party had sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, it is always necessary to place on record the fact and circumstances which resulted in causing delay in filing the appeal and the same should reveal sufficient cause for the delay. As the party has failed to disclose any cause for delay, question of condonation of delay cannot arise. It is also pertinent to note that the applicants have nowhere disclosed that the applicants were unaware of the fact that the Hon ble High Court had directed the applicants to file appeal within three weeks from the date of the order and that the applicants came to know about the same only after obtaining the certified copy thereof. 18. The Hon ble High Court having fixed the period of three weeks for filing of appeal with further direction to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal on merits within eight weeks from the date of filing of such appeal and further direction to the counsel for the parties to appear on specific date before the Tribunal, ignoring all of these directions, and inspite of the absence of any cause for the delay beyond three weeks from the date of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
