9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (8) TMI 1148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER PER : B.C. PATEL, J. The petitioner has challenged a notification issued by the Central Government in superseession of the notification issued earlier on 27th October, 1998 with regard to anti-dumping duty. Under the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding in view of rule 12 and there may be provisional duty in rule 13. After the termination of investigation, final finding as per rule 17 is to be arrived at and the designated authority has to submit the same to the Central Government and it is thereafter that within a period of three months of the publication of final findings by the designated authority under rule 17, the Central Government ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (118) ELT 305 (S.C.). The Apex Court judgment reads as under. We see no reason to entertain these special leave petitions. It is perfectly clear now that we have seen the provision of the Act that the order of the Designated Authority is purely recommendatory. The appeal lies against the determination and that determination has to be made by the Central Government. For this reason, we decline to e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of three weeks from 13.6.2000. Thus, all the respondents were aware that the reply is to be filed. However, till today, reply is not filed. Learned advocate appearing for the Union of India submitted that as the CEGAT has made an order in exercise of power conferred under section 9(C) of the Act, the government has taken into consideration the decision and has issued a notification. We are afraid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of the CEGAT cannot be considered as recommendatory, more particularly when the Apex Court has held that the appeal was not competent before the CEGAT. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we stay the subsequent notification and direct the petitioner to make payment for the consignment under protest as per the notification dated 27.10.98. For the balance amount, an undertaking shall be fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
