9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (6) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal dismissed. - Anti Dumping COD Application No. 50654 of 2018 with Miscellaneous Application No. 50655 of 2018 In Appeal No. 51852 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 51312/2019 - Dated:- 30-9-2019 - HON BLE SHRI JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT, HON BLE SHRI C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND HON BLE MRS. RACHNA GUPTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Dr. Ms. Karnika Seth, S/Shri Navya Singh and Sarvesh Roy, Advocates for the appellant. S/Shri Ameet Singh and Amar Anand, Advocates for Designated Authority. Ms. Reena Khair, Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Rita Jha and Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocates for the Domestic Industry Shri Sunil Kumar, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. ORDER JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA The Anti Dumping Appeal was filed by the Appellant before the Tribunal on 23 April 2018 to assail the Notification dated 17 February 2017 that was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Part II on 17 February 2017. The appellant also filed an application for condoning the delay as Section 9C (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 orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant preferred a writ petition (W.P. (C) no. 7887 of 2017) before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi praying inter alia, for a direction to the Respondent Designated Authority to provide documents and also to permit inspection of the public file. Vide order dated 06/09/2017, the Hon ble High Court dismissed the writ petition. 7. The Appellant challenged the order dated 06/09/2017 by way of Special Leave Petition (C) no. 7690 of 2018 before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 19/03/2018, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed, even while dismissing the SLP, that it was open to the Appellant to approach the Appellate Authority alongwith a condonation of delay application, having spent this period of time before the High Court and Supreme Court. 8. It is in this background that the Appellant is filing this appeal in the month of April 2018 being aggrieved by the Final Findings of the Designated Authority and the anti dumping duties imposed by the Ministry of Finance in the Government of India. 9. It is in these circumstances that there has been a delay in filing the instant appeal. It is in the interest of justice that the present application is allowed. Accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. This order dated 10 July 2017 was thereafter assailed by the appellant by filing a writ-petition in the Delhi High Court, being writ-petition no. 7887 of 2017. Paragraph 6 mentions that the prayer that was made before the Delhi High Court was to issue a direction to the Designated Authority to provide all documents and also permit inspection of the public file. Paragraph 6 further mentions that the Delhi High Court dismissed the writ-petition by judgment and order dated 6 September 2017. Subsequently the Appellant challenged the judgment and order dated 6 September 2017 of the Delhi High Court by filing a Special Leave Petition bearing no. 7690 of 2018 in the Supreme Court which Petition was dismissed on 19 March 2018 but it was left open to the Appellant to approach the Tribunal with a delay condonation application. Paragraph 8 mentions that the Appeal was thereafter filed before the Tribunal in the month of April 2018 with a delay condonation application. 6. As noted above, Section 9 C (2) of the Act requires that the Appeal can be filed before the Tribunal to assail an order passed by the Designated Authority within 90 days of the date of the order under appeal. The da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is presumed to have been in the knowledge of the Petitioner. Further, 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. It appears to the Court that, having missed its opportunity of filing its appeal in the CESTAT within time, the Petitioner was seeking to build an alibi to explain its delay and therefore applied for inspection of the DA s file. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that, without the address of the interested parties, it cannot file an appeal before the CESTAT. It is noticed that the names of the interested parties are set out in the Final Findings itself. With most of them being companies, it should not have been difficult for the Petitioner to ascertain their addresses. The Court is not satisfied about the bonafides of the Petitioner s request to the DA . 9. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Delhi High Court clearly shows that the aforesaid prayer of the Appellant that it became aware of the Notification dated 17 February 2017 only in the second week of May, 2017 was also examined by the Delhi High Court. The High Court did not find this explanation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of the order i.e. within 90 days from 17 February 2017. The only reason given by the Appellant for not filing the Appeal within the stipulated period is that it was not aware of the addresses of the parties nor documents were made available to them. The request of the Appellant was specifically considered and rejected by the Delhi High Court and this order has attained finality on the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court. It is, therefore, not open to the Appellant to again raise the same plea before the Tribunal in the application filed for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Even if the time spent by the Appellant in the Delhi High Court between 31 August 2017 and 6 September 2017 is excluded as also the time spent in the Supreme Court in filing the Special Leave Petition on 6 December 2017 and it dismissal on 19 March 2018 is excluded, only benefit of 103 days can be granted to the Appellant. However, the entire period of limitation expired even before the writ-petition was filed by the Appellant in the Delhi High Court. 13. Further, it needs to be noticed that the Appellant had been paying provisional duty in accordance with the preliminary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
