9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty has been revoked only from a subsequent date i.e. from 30-12-2011. As such, the post-decisional hearing is required to be undertaken by the DA in respect of the anti-dumping levy for the period it was in force in respect of the exports from Saudi Arabia as well as for exports from other countries for the full period. Since the six month period is already over the same will be extended by a period of another six months from the date the initial six month period has expired to enable the DA to carry out the direction contained in the final order of the Tribunal dated 11-8-2011. - AD/1/2011 - AD/M/2-4/2012(PB) - Dated:- 14-5-2012 - Justice Ajit Bharihoke, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Shri D.N. Panda, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri R.S. Suri, Senior Advocate, Saurabh S. Sinha, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Ms. Amrita, Ameet Singh, Ms. Pooja Sharma, Pramod Kumar Rai, Ms. Reena Khair, Ms. Anusuya Sinha, Atul Gupta, Ashish Gupta and Ajay Garg, Advocates, for the Appearing Parties. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Miscellaneous Application No. AD/M/1001/2011 filed by M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) seeks interim directions to stay the proceedings before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -8-2011 within the time granted. While doing so, the Designated Authority will not be influenced by any of the observations made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 22155 of 2009 dated 22-1-2010. The Hon ble Supreme Court has also reproduced paragraph 15 of the Tribunal s order in paragraph 6 of its order by which the appeals were remanded to the DA for affording post-decisional hearing to the appellants. The respondent-domestic industry and other interested parties were also allowed to participate in such post-decisional hearing and all the connected miscellaneous applications and stay petitions were disposed of since the main appeals were remanded. 3. For completeness sake, we reproduce below paragraphs 12, 13 and 15 of the Tribunal s order in the case of Allied Enterprises (supra) :- 12. The questions raised before us in these numerous appeals and in several other appeals pending before the Tribunal (totally numbering about 40 appeals) involve serious economic consequences. In all the cases relating to these appeals, the successor DA has not given a fresh hearing as per the prevailing practice in the Ministry of Commerce. Now the Hon ble Supreme Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... COs stand disposed off. 4. The present review petition No. AD/M/1037/2011 has been filed by the respondent-domestic industry RIL pursuant to the Hon ble Supreme Court s order in their appeal against the Tribunal s aforecited order dated 11-8-2011 in the case of Allied Enterprises (supra). The Hon ble Supreme Court s order dated 15-12-2011 is reproduced below :- Learned senior counsel Sh. P.P. Rao, seeks permission to withdraw this appeal with the liberty to file an appropriate review petition before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi within 15 days from today. Learned senior counsel also submits that, if such a petition is made, the Tribunal may be directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Permission sought for is granted. Civil appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. Liberty is granted to the appellant, if it so desires, to file an appropriate review petition within 15 days from today. If such a petition is filed, Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same within a month s time thereafter. 5. As per the provision of sub-section (5) of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, anti-dumping appeal can only be heard by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o HP. 10. Shri Atul Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for M/s. Saudi Arabia Basic Indus. Corpon. challenges the review petition on various grounds :- (i) No prejudice has been caused by the impugned order passed by the Tribunal to any of the parties as the matter has only been remanded for post-decisional hearing while continuing the anti-dumping duties, and the notification imposing anti-dumping duty has not been withdrawn (except that the Government of India in a separate action has withdrawn anti-dumping duty in respect of export from Saudi Arabia from a subsequent date which is unrelated to Tribunal s order). (ii) The appeal filed by RIL was not competent to be heard on the date the appeal of APC was taken up for hearing. APC had also filed an early hearing application and it had opted for its appeal to be taken up together with other appeals involving the same issue of the successor DA not giving a fresh hearing. (iii) The RIL was represented by another learned counsel while the Tribunal heard the entire matter over several days and also offered his arguments. (iv) The arguments against ATMA (supra) decision not being applicable in all cases were heard by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds and Settlement and Sunita Jain v. Pawan Kumar Jain, this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction. 14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible. 13. We have considered the submissions made before us, the case records and the cited decisions. It has been argued before us that the Tribunal has inherent power to review and that Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 allows the Tribunal to make such orders to secure the ends of justice. The decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunitadevi Singhania (supra) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as also held in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji - AIR 1970 SC 1273 that power to review is not an inherent power, it must be conferred by law specifically. 14. In view of the above, the review petition filed by RIL is not maintainable. Moreover, the question of invoking Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to secure the ends of justice does not arise in this case as no prejudice has been caused to both the domestic industry applicants RIL and HP inasmuch as the impugned final order passed by the Tribunal fully protects the interest of the domestic industry by continuing the levy of anti-dumping duty while ordering post-decisional hearing. Para 12 of the impugned order clearly shows that the Tribunal was concerned that the domestic industry should not be left to suffer irreparable injury caused by dumping if the appeals under decision and similar pending appeals were to be granted by merely setting aside the final findings and consequently removing the anti-dumping duties. The final order also took note of the fact that there were other pending appeals in the Tribunal as stated earlier and it has specifically directed the DA to allow the respondent-domestic ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20. As regards the miscellaneous application filed by the DA for seeking clarification regarding continuance of post-decisional hearing, we are of the view that there was no bar on the DA to continue the post-decisional hearing and to complete the same within the time limit specified. However, the DA appears to have entertained a doubt in this regard in view of the review petition filed by RIL before the Tribunal and also for the reason that the Government of India has subsequently revoked anti-dumping duty in respect of imports from Saudi Arabia with effect from 30-12-2011. We find that the anti-dumping duty has not been revoked in respect of all the countries and further, in respect of Saudi Arabia, the anti-dumping duty has been revoked only from a subsequent date i.e. from 30-12-2011. As such, the post-decisional hearing is required to be undertaken by the DA in respect of the anti-dumping levy for the period it was in force in respect of the exports from Saudi Arabia as well as for exports from other countries for the full period. Moreover, as stated above, the domestic industry seeking enhancement of the anti-dumping, duty is also required to be heard in respect of their clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
