9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Order was the Final Finding on the subject of Midterm Anti-Dumping Review investigations in the matter relating to imports of certain types/grades of alloy and non-alloy steel billets, bars and rounds having 70 mm to 250 mm diameter from Russia and China. In the course of those hearings the Notification had been gazetted. I had recorded that there was no scope for contending that a prima facie case had not been made out for the continuance of anti-dumping duties. Nevertheless, the Petitioner had been granted fifteen days time within which to file an Appeal before CESTAT. The Notification was stayed till the date on which the Tribunal fixed the matter for public hearing. A similar order is pressed for in these proceedings. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has conceded that the remedy of an Appeal is wider and more comprehensive then a Writ Petition, and therefore, cannot but be a more efficacious remedy. He, however, contends that CESTAT has expressed the opinion in Indian Spinners Association v. Designated Authority, 2000 (119) E.L.T. 299 (Tribunal) that an Appeal against a Final-Finding of the Designated Authority is not maintainable in view of the pronouncement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h courts and jurists have carved out an exception to the rule of precedents. It has been explained as rule of sub-silentio. "A decision passes sub-silentio, in the technical sense that has come to be attached to that phrase, when the particular point of law involved in the decision is not perceived by the court or present to its mind" (Salmond on Jurisprudence 12th Edn., p. 153). In Lancester Motor Company (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd. the Court did not feel bound by earlier decision as it was rendered 'without any argument without reference to the crucial words of the rule and without any citation of the authority'. It was approved by this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur. The bench held that precedents sub-silentio and without arguments are of no moment. The courts thus have taken recourse to this principle for relieving from injustice perpetrated by unjust precedents. A decision which is not express and is not founded on reasons nor it proceeds on consideration of issue cannot be deemed to be a law declared to have a binding effect as is contemplated by Article 141. Uniformity and consistency are core of judicial discipline. But that which escapes in the ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition by a non-speaking order which does not contain the reasons for dismissal does not amount to acceptance of the correctness of the decision sought to be appealed against. The effect of such a non-speaking order of dismissal without anything more only means that this court has decided only that it is not a fit case where the special leave petition should be granted. Such an order does not constitute law laid down by this Court for the purpose of Article 141 of' the Constitution. (See : Rup Diamonds v. Union of India; Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT. and Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Assn. v. Union of India. The High Court was, therefore in error in holding that by dismissing the special leave petition against the judgment in N. Arun Kumar Singh v. State of Manipur this Court has affirmed the said decision of the High Court and the said view of this Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution." 8. It is also worthy of note and as mentioned above, that whereas a recommendation made by the Designated Authority for the levy of anti-dumping duty leaves its imposition to the discretion of the Central Government, be imposed under Section 18(1), but if the Final Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t". The writ petition was dismissed but leave to file an appeal was granted. In Surefaces Plus v. Union of India, 2004 (173) E.L.T. 127 (Guj.) a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat had observed that a writ petition against the Preliminary Finding of the Designated Authority was premature. The stand taken in Indian Spinners's case appears to me not to be in consonance with law. 11. Certain observations of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Nicholas Piramal Ltd. v. Union of India in WP(C) No. 585/2005 have been read out to put forward the argument that an Appeal may not be an efficacious remedy. Shri A.B. Desai, learned Additional Solicitor General appears to have agreed with the submission that until all concerned parties have been served the Appeallate Tribunal was not empowered to take up the Appeal for hearing and that the process would take two to three weeks time to complete. In that conspectus of facts and arguments the Division Bench had ordered that until the Appeal was set-down for final hearing the subject goods could be cleared on provisional basis on Bond. If the CESTAT has not been invested with the power to grant ex parte interim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
