9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... azette by the Central Government under Rule 18 and, as such, the appeals under Section 9C in the present case are not maintainable - appeal dismissed being not maintainable. - AD/COD/50230 & 50231/2017-CU [DB] in AD/50456 & 50457/2017-CU [DB] - AD/A/56445-56446/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 17-8-2017 - (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President, Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Smt. Reena Khair, Advocate and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ritu Jha, Advocates for the appellant Shri Govind Dixit, DR for Dept. of Revenue, Respondent Shri Ameet Singh, Advocate for the Designated Authority, Respondent-No.2 Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate for Domestic Industry/Respondent parties. ORDER Per: B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56/2017 is against final fining No.15/29/2014 dated 01.07.2016 of the D.A. consequent on a sunset review of anti-dumping duty on import of acetone originating in or exported from Japan and Thailand. The D.A. had earlier investigated the issue of possible dumping of acetone coming from subject countries. On completion of the investigation, he issued the final finding on 19.01.2011 recommending imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty on acetone. Notification No.36/2011 Cus ADD dated 18.04.2011 was issued imposing ADD on the subject goods from subject countries for 5 years. The period was extended upto 18.04.2016 vide Notification No.16/2015-Cus-ADD dated 22.04.2015. The present final findings are consequent on sunset review undertaken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ministry of Finance. 8. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that they are aggrieved by non-continuation of A.D. Duty on the subject goods in both the above cases. It is prayed that the D.A. has erred in arriving at his conclusion. The appellants contested the findings of the D.A. on various grounds. 9. The ld. Counsel for the D.A. and the ld. A.R. for the Revenue contested the maintainability of these appeals on the ground that the D.A. is only recommending authority. There is neither any Notification nor any order by the Department of Revenue which can be subjected to appeal in terms of Section 9C of the Tariff Act. 10. The ld. Counsels appearing for the respondent No.3, 4, 5 6 contested the appeal on merit. It is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 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 information through RTI application. As per the appeal papers, the Technical Officer, TRU, Department of Revenue, had put up a office note on 17/10/2016 explaining the background of the case, starting from initiation of investigation and final recommendation of the DA. It is recorded that as no ADD was recommended for imposition no further action lies at the end of Department of Revenue. The said note was appro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 notification in the official gazette. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no notification in the official gazette. An information obtained under RTI Act cannot be equated to a notification issued under official gazette in terms of exercise of statutory powers vested in the Central Government. Incidentally, we also note that the appellants in their prayer have only impugned the final finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
