9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the Act. provides that every appeal under Section 9C (1) of the Act shall be filed within 90 days of the date of order under appeal but the Appellate Tribunal may entertain any appeal after the expiry of the said period of 90 days if it is satisfied that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. 2. The averments made in the delay condonation application are as follows :- "1. The Appellant Mita India Pvt. Ltd. has preferred this appeal against the Final Findings Notification No. 14/2/2015-DGAD dated 09/12/2016, issued by the Respondent No. 2, Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties, Department of Commerce, Government of India, as notified by the Respondent No. 1, Ministry of Finance vide Notification No. 7/2017- Customs (ADD) dated 17/02/2017. The contents of the appeal are not being repeated herein for the same of brevity and the same may be read as part and parcel of the present application also. 2. The Appellant respectfully submits that there has been a delay in filing the appeal, which delay is neither willful nor deliberate. There is sufficient cause for the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there has been a delay in filing the instant appeal. It is in the interest of justice that the present application is allowed. Accordingly, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay to exercise of its powers under Section 9 C (2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (as amended)". 3. In order to appreciate the submission made by Dr. Karnika Seth, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant/Applicant, Ms. Reena Khair, learned Counsel appearing for Domestic Industry, Shri Ameet Singh, learned Counsel appearing for Designated Authority and Shri Sunil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for Union of India, it will be appropriate at this stage to examine certain facts leading to the issuance of the final notification that was published in the Gazette by the Ministry of Finance. 4. The anti dumping investigation concerning imports of seamless tubes, steel pipes and hollow profiles of iron alloy or non-alloy steel (other than cast iron and stainless steel), whether hot finished or cold drawn or cold rolled of an external diameter not exceeding 355.6 mm or 14" OD" originating in or exported from China PR was initiated by a Notification dated 8 July 2015 that was published i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Tribunal to assail an order passed by the Designated Authority within 90 days of the date of the order under appeal. The date of order under appeal would be the date when the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance is published in the Gazette. The records indicate that the notification was published in the Gazette on 17 February 2017. The Appeal, therefore, should have been filed before the Tribunal within 90 days of this date. 7. According to the Appellant, it became aware of the imposition of final duties in the second week of May 2017 only. The plea of the Appellant is that it was not aware of the list of the interested parties or a copy of the disclosures statement. The Appellant, therefore, filed a writ-petition in the Delhi High Court. 8. It would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce the judgment dated 6 September 2017 of the Delhi High Court in the writ-petition filed by the Appellant and the same is as follows :- "1. The Petitioner seeks a direction to the Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry ('DA') to permit inspection of the public file pertaining to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the second week of May, 2017 was also examined by the Delhi High Court. The High Court did not find this explanation to be convincing and the High Court observed that the notification having been Gazetted, it is presumed to have been in the knowledge of the Petitioner. The High Court also noticed that the provisional duty during the period of investigation was already in force for more than a year and was to the knowledge of the Petitioner. The High Court also observed that it appeared that having missed the opportunity of filing an Appeal before the Tribunal within time, the Petitioner was seeking to build an alibi to explain the delay and had, therefore, applied for inspection of the file of the Designated Authority. The plea of the Appellant that it could not file appeal in the absence of the addressee of the interested parties was also not found to be convincing as the High Court observed that most of them were big companies and so it should not have been difficult for the petitioner to ascertain the addresses. 10. This judgment of the Delhi High Court was assailed by the Appellant before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court did not interfere with the judgment passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
