9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... THAT:- This issue is no longer res integra as it was decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS M/S. KUMHO PETROCHEMICALS COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER [ 2017 (6) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that the notification extending anti-dumping duty by five years i.e., upto January 1, 2014 was in the nature of temporary legislation and validity thereof could be extended, in exercise of powers contained in second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9A of the Act only before January 1, 2014. Appeal dismissed. - Writ Appeal No. 1489 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2022 - Honourable Mr. Justice R. Mahadevan And Honourable Mr. Justice J.Sathya Narayana Prasad For the Appellant : Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated equipments in India. During the course of their business, the first respondent/appellant herein issued a show cause notice dated 15.07.2017 seeking to levy Anti- Dumping Duty (ADD) for various periods. Such show cause notice dated 15.07.2017 was issued by the appellant by placing reliance on the notification dated 16.12.2010 empowering the first respondent/appellant to impose ADD from 8th December 2009 till 07.12.2014 and the subsequent notifications dated 05.01.2015 and 26.04.2016 extending the validity period. The writ petitioner/first respondent herein sent a reply dated 08.08.2017 to the show cause notice dated 15.07.2017 by placing reliance on the orders passed by the Delhi High Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court in ide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt and prayed to set aside the show cause notice dated 15.07.2017 issued by the first respondent/appellant herein. 6. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents therein primarily on the ground that even before a final order is passed, pursuant to the issuance of the show cause notice dated 15.07.2017, the writ petition at the instance of the writ petitioner is not maintainable. 7. The learned single Judge, on appreciation of the rival contentions, observed that it is well settled that as against a show cause notice, a writ petition is not maintainable, however, there are some exceptions carved by the Constitutional Courts and one such exceptions arise in the present case. As far as the validity of the show cause notice issued b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ADD for the period from 01.09.2015 to 07.12.2015 is set aside. The demand for ADD in the show cause notice dated 28.10.2015 for the period from 08.12.2014 to 26.04.2016 is also set aside. With regard to the other issues, which are subject matter of show cause notice, dated 15.07.2017, the petitioner is directed to participate in the adjudication process and extend full cooperation to the Adjudicating Authority to finalize the proceedings. However, since the issue relating to demand of ADD has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumho Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd (supra), it would be an empty formality for the petitioner to go before the Adjudicating Authority, who issued the show cause notice, dated 28.10.2015, to raise such conten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed from entertaining the writ petition and therefore, the learned Additional Solicitor General prayed for allowing this writ appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Judge. 9. On the above contentions raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant, the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner/first respondent would contend that the issue involved in this appeal was settled by virtue of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited reported in 2017 (351) E.L.T. 65 (SC) , upholding the order passed by the Delhi High Court. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner /first respondent would submit that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and validity thereof could be extended, in exercise of powers contained in second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9A of the Act only before January 1, 2014. 37. We do not find any infirmity in the aforesaid approach of the High Court in interpreting the second proviso to Section 9A(5) of the Act. The High Court has rightly interpreted the aforesaid provision in the light of Article 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Agreement for implementation and Article VI of the GATT, commonly known as Implementation Agreement.... 12. In the light of the above decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court, the challenge made by the appellant to the order dated 06.10.2017 made in W.P.No.22770 of 2017 by the learned Judge fails. Accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
