TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal challenging anti-dumping duties dismissed due to delay and lack of grounds.</h1> <h3>SHENYANG MATSUSHITA STORAGE BATTERY CO. Versus DESIGNATED AUTHORITY</h3> SHENYANG MATSUSHITA STORAGE BATTERY CO. Versus DESIGNATED AUTHORITY - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 261 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Delay in filing the appeal by the appellant.2. Challenge against the imposition of anti-dumping duties on batteries.3. Justification for the delay in filing the appeal.4. Interpretation of the High Court's order regarding filing appeals.Issue 1: Delay in filing the appeal by the appellantThe appellant, represented by Shri Chander Kohli, sought an adjournment due to issues with their authorized representative, M/s. Strategic Law Group. The Tribunal, led by Justice K.K. Usha, denied the adjournment request as they found no merit in the reasons provided. The Tribunal proceeded to evaluate the application to condone the delay based on the available record materials.Issue 2: Challenge against the imposition of anti-dumping duties on batteriesThe appeal filed by M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. and two others challenged the imposition of anti-dumping duties on batteries from China, Korea, Japan, and Bangladesh. The present appellant was a respondent in one of the appeals and was represented by M/s. Strategic Law Group. The contention raised was whether duty should have been imposed on the present appellant as well. The Tribunal heard arguments from the present appellant in response to the appeal filed by M/s. Exide Industries Ltd.Issue 3: Justification for the delay in filing the appealThe appellant cited the pendency of writ petitions before the Calcutta High Court as the reason for the delay in filing the appeal. They claimed that the High Court's judgment granted an opportunity for interested parties to file appeals before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this justification, as the High Court's order only allowed the writ petitioner to file an appeal, not other interested parties. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's delay was an attempt to delay the pronouncement of orders that were already heard and reserved.Issue 4: Interpretation of the High Court's order regarding filing appealsThe High Court's order explicitly stated that the writ petitions were dismissed but allowed the petitioner to file an appropriate appeal or review petition. However, this opportunity was not extended to all interested parties as claimed by the appellant. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant was not adversely affected by the notification challenging the appeal and deemed the delay in filing the appeal as lacking bona fides. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Overall, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the lack of merit in the reasons provided for the delay, the interpretation of the High Court's order, and the attempt to delay the proceedings. The appeal challenging the imposition of anti-dumping duties on batteries was ultimately dismissed due to the delay in filing and lack of substantive grounds for the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
