9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 976 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] where it was held that the petition is premature since no notification has yet been issued by the Central Government consequent upon the Final Finding dated 4th July, 2017 and secondly, even if such a notification is issued, the Petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of an appeal before the CESTAT. While the Petitioner may have a grievance that on a mere technical objection or a technical non-compliance, substantive material of the Petitioner has been ignored, the Petitioner would have to wait for the final notification, if any, issued by the Government in order to challenge the same in accordance with law. The final findings issued by the designated authority under Rule 17 of Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f New Pneumatic Radial Tyres of Rubber for Buses and Lorries, initiated by the DA vide notification dated 2nd December, 2019. The Petitioners submit that they had suo motu filed their responses along with documents. On 25th August, 2020, Petitioners submitted verification documents to the DA in compliance with the email/notice dated 3rd August, 2020. On 21st October, 2020, the Petitioners participated in the oral hearings conducted by the DA, in accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped articles and for Determination of injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter, Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995). However they were surprised to see a nonconfidential version of the disclosure stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W.P.(C) 2632/2017 (Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Union of India) declined to entertain a writ petition, challenging the Final Finding of the DA on account of the availability to the Petitioner there of an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the CESTAT. In the said decision, this Court referred to and distinguished the above decision of the Gujarat High Court in Nirma Limited v. Union of India (supra). This Court preferred to follow its earlier decisions in Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd. v. Designated Authority 2016 (338 ELT 397 (Del.); PTA Users Association v. Union India 2016 (340) ELT 125 (Del.) and Balaji Action Buildwell v. Union of India 2016 (337) ELT 166 (Del.) in which this Court had consistently declined to entertain a petition unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment consequent upon the Final Finding dated 4th July, 2017 and secondly, even if such a notification is issued, the Petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of an appeal before the CESTAT. 9. The Supreme Court has also categorically settled the legal position in Designated Authority Ors. (Supra) as under: 6. From a perusal of the aforesaid materials on record we find that there are seriously disputed questions with regard to the locus of the respondent M/s Sandisk International Ltd. to file the writ petition before the Delhi High Court and also as to whether the information sought for by the said respondent was actually furnished to it by the Designated Authority in the above communications and orders. Though we would not deem it app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
