9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty before recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty was required to provide personal hearing to parties who have filed objections and adduced evidence before him. - matter remanded back to the Designated Authority. Appeal is allowed X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notified by the Designated Authority within a short time thereafter on 7-7-2010 without taking into account the concerns of the appellant-association and without granting it a personal hearing which was sought for. 3. Shri Jain submits that the Designated Authority has given his final findings without following the principles of natural justice, the levy imposed consequent thereto is not in the public interest and it merely benefits a monopolistic domestic producer. Hence, he argues that the anti-dumping levy should be set aside. 4. Ms. Reena Khair, learned Advocate appearing for the domestic industry states that the appellant-Association has not demonstrated before the Designated Authority that it is an Interested party under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... requested for a personal hearing by its letter dated 23-6-2010 issued from its office in Mumbai. The Designated Authority notified the Final Findings within a few days on 7-7-2010 without giving a hearing to the appellant-Association. The excuse of statutory time-limit of one year is nothing but a lame excuse in our view, when the First Proviso to Rule 17(1) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 provides for extension of the time-limit of one year by six more months. In this case, the date of initiation being 10-7-2009, the statutory time-limit could have been extended upto 9-1-2011 and the appellant-Association could have been ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le dealing with the representation of the appellants. The learned Consultant for the appellants has also produced before us a certificate of Registration in respect of the appellant-Association. Moreover, we find that the appellant-Association was the only Association of consumers who had filed its objections against the levy apart from claiming membership of over 800. As such, the objection raised appears to be of no real import. 12. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haridas Exports (supra) cited by the learned Advocate is of no assistance to support any of her arguments. It is a decision rendered in appeals against orders of the MRTP Commission and deals with jurisdiction of that Commission. However, we note i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
