9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to rendering the Court's order and proceedings infructuous without there being adjudication which situation cannot be permitted to prevail in any circumstances especially when the High Court is examining the final finding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and when the Court has informed all the concerned by way of orders that the notice was being issued for final finding it was expected of all to be mindful of the time line fixed by the Court so as to contribute in the proceedings of hearing and adjudication which was subject matter of the main petition. The said subject matter cannot be permitted to be rendered infructuous only on account of, may be inadvertence, on part of the Union of India. Nor would any order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r alia, challenging the final finding No.07/16/2018-DGAD dated 29/01/2019 and the disclosure statement dated 15/01/2019 issued by respondent no.2 and placed at Annexure-G and Annexure-H to the main petition. 4. The Union of India is respondent no.1 and the Designated Authority is respondent no.2. Minister of Finance, Department of Revenue is respondent no.3 and Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, Ministry of Finance is respondent no.4. 5. In the main petition, prayer in para-36(B) is for interim direction for not taking any steps pursuant to the impugned final finding dated 29/01/2019. 6. This Court, on 13/03/2019, passed the order for issuance of notice for final disposal making it returnable on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner has invited our attention to the discloser statement and laid emphasis upon page No.206 and 207 to indicate that the columns which have been left blank or extract marks are provided, ordinarily ought not to have been left blank and therefore, this was specifically brought to the notice of the authority under the objection dated 22.1.2019. The authority without there being any decision thereon, rendered its final findings, which could be seen from the page No. 261 and 262. In view thereof the Court is of the view that as there is a primafacie breach of principle of natural justice as the decisions have been rendered prima-facie without affording appropriate material to the concerned, the Court has issued Notice for final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the same was requested for posting on the next day i.e. today. Inadvertently instead of 24.4.2019 it was posted on 25.4.2019 and as there is an urgency the matter is requested to be taken up today with the intimation to all the parties and their counsels. Accordingly the Court granted permission and the matter listed today itself. 2.The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 states that he is in fact aware of the orders passed in this matter but he received softcopy of the reply to be filed and the same could be served upon the petitioner and hardcopy duly affirmed be placed on record by tomorrow i.e. 25.4.2019 as he has been informed that the affirmed copy is already dispatched. 3.The learned counsel appearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i-dumping duty so that the subject matter of petition may not be rendered infructuous and irretrievable situation may be avoided. The Court is, therefore, of the view that let there be a direction to respondent No.1 that the anti-dumping duty as mention in Notification No.392018Custom(ADD) for the product paracetamol dated 20.8.2018 at page 119 shall be extended for a further period of two months that would take care of hearing aspect as by then the pleading would be completed. The anti-dumping duty as mentioned in the notification dated 20.8.2018 be extended for a further period up to 24.6.2019. The matter may be posted for hearing on 12.6.2019 and the parties shall exchange their pleadings, if any, in the meantime so that on 12.6.2019 the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that in fact the Court may pass appropriate order whereunder the imports that may be made after 16/04/2019, could be recorded so that ultimate outcome of the petition may govern the same, else the notification which was inure till 26/04/2019 has in fact been rescinded and when the Court pass an order on 24.04.2019, the factum of rescinding had already set in. Therefore, the Court may not pass any mandatory order. 13. The Court is of the view that the development in this matter and the passing of the orders time and again clearly indicate that the matter was to be decided finally on or before 26/04/2019. However, on account of respondents' inability to place on record their version of reply, the matter was required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
