9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Corrigendum thereto was issued on 22.4.2009. The Customs Notification based thereon was issued on 22.4.2009. In view of corrigendum dated 27.4.2009 issued by the Designated Authority, the corrigendum to Customs Notification was issued on 30.5.2009. The Public hearings were conducted on 26.6.2009 and the appellants submitted written submissions on 20.7.2009. Further, rejoinder was filed by the appellants on 10.8.2009. The disclosure statement was issued on 12.11.2009. The date for filing comments were notified as 20.11.2009. The final findings were issued on 24.11.2009. The appellants approached with representation to the Designated Authority on 1.12.2009. The appellants also made representation on 15.12.2009. The appellants also filed writ petition No.19322 of 2009 before the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court. By order dated 18.12.2009, the petition was disposed of by the High Court. The appellants filed representation before Government of India on 29.12.2009. The Designated Authority issued corrigendum on 12.1.2010 to the final finding dated 24.11.2009. The Customs Notification on the basis of said corrigendum was issued on 20.2.2010. 3.The said wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; against the final findings. The matter in that regard has already been disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 8.10.2010. It is not open for the appellants to pursue the matter against the final findings before this Tribunal. Reliance is placed in the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (118) ELT 305 (SC), as also the decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare GMBHY and Ors. vs. Hindustan Lever Limited and Anr. reported in (2002) ILLJ 453 Bom. as also the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain reported in AIR SC 1680. 6. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the challenge before the High Court was for a limited purpose and therefore, the statutory right of appeal cannot be denied to the appellants. The learned Advocate submitted that since the High Court has disposed of the writ petition without any decision on merits, nothing prohibits the appellants from pursuing the appellate remedy against the final findings. 7. It is not in dispute that the final finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s pending before the designated authority and therefore, the appellants can put forth their grievance before the designated authority. In other words, the Hon'ble High Court rejected the challenge to the final finding while giving liberty to the appellants to put forth their grievances before the designated authority in the review proceeding. Undoubtedly, the review proceedings are in terms of Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. This fact was also noted by the Hon'ble High Court while disposing of the writ petition as is apparent from para 4 of the order of the Hon'ble High Court quoted above. 9. Simultaneously, the appellants are entitled to raise all the relevant issues including those raised in the writ petition before the designated authority. In other words, the challenge to the final findings at the instance of the appellants stood concluded before the Hon'ble High Court and only remedy which is left to the appellant is in the nature of placing grievances before the designated authority in the review proceedings. 10. Undoubtedly, the appellate remedy is statutory remedy. However, explanation of such remedies is not immun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the provisions of Section 11, Explanation IV and Order II, Rule 1 are in furtherance of the same scheme i.e. to prevent repeated litigation between the same parties on the same subject. It is further to be noted here that Rule 1 of Order II uses the phrase 'subject in dispute' and not the phrase 'cause of action' which is used in Rule 2 of Order II of the Civil Procedure Code, similarly Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code uses the phrase 'matter which might or ought to have been a ground of attack'. It thus appears that, though there are several causes of action available to a plaintiff, if all the cause of action are relating to the subject in dispute, then Order II, Rule 1 obliges the plaintiff to include all those causes of action in one suit, if it is practicable for the plaintiff to do so. Now, if a plaintiff disregards the mandate of Order II, Rule 1 and institutes a suit leaving out some grounds available to him on the subject in dispute and subsequently institutes a suit on the grounds which were left out from the earlier suit, then in case the earlier suit has already been finally decided then Section 11 of the Civil Procedure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
