9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are by M/s. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited (HOCL) against two different final findings of Designated Authority (DA), Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. Since the issue involved is almost identical, both the appeals have been taken up together. Before proceeding with the main appeals, we note that there is a delay of 246 days in filing these appeals, before the Tribunal. 2. The ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the final findings in both the cases were notified on 01.07.2016 recommending that there is no need for continued imposition of Anti-Dumping Duties on the import of subject goods from the subject countries, the appellant co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal findings dated 01.07.2016 was issued by the DA. He recommended that there is no need for continued imposition of ADD on the import of subject goods from the subject countries. 5. In appeal No.AD/51113/2017, almost identical situation is with reference to Anti-Dumping Duty on phenol originating in or exported from Japan and Thailand. The DA vide his final finding dated 08.10.2010 recommended imposition of definitive ADD on the subject goods which were notified under Customs Notification No.120/2010-CUS/ ADD dated 01.12.2010 for 5 years extended further up to 18.04.2016 vide Notification No.14/15-CUS/ADD dated 17.04.2015. The present impugned final findings dated 01.07.2016 is pursuant to a sunset review undertaken by the DA. On completi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... minary objection regarding maintainability of these appeals, under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. Admittedly, in the present case, the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue who is the Competent Authority to impose any ADD on goods in terms of Section 9A, did not issue any order either imposing or reviewing the imposition of ADD on subject goods. Though the DA initiated investigation in terms of the statutory powers conferred on him, on conclusion of the investigation he issued the final findings stating that there is no case for imposition of ADD. Thereafter no order has been passed or notification issued in terms of Customs Tariff Act or the Rules of 1995, in this regard. 9. The appellants did get some inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government in making the determination and his recommendation is not binding on the Central Government. The Hon'ble High Court further held that the report of the DA being only a recommendation does not create any rights or liabilities. 11. When the final finding of the DA alone cannot be a subject matter of appeal under Section 9C, as held in the above judicial pronouncement, we are left with the question regarding whether any information obtained under RTI Act can be considered as an order amenable to appeal under Section 9C of the Tariff Act. We find no legal justification for inferring such finding, as pleaded by the appellants. Rule 18 of the 1995 Rules talks about the powers of Central Government to impose ADD by notificati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
