2013 (10) TMI 458 - AT - Customs

Tribunal extends investigation deadline, issues anti-dumping duty notification.

The Tribunal granted an extension of the time period for completing investigations by the Designated Authority until 05.08.2013. Despite opposition from ... Extension of time period - provisional levy of anti dumping duty - Whether the period of six months provided by the Tribunal in its order dated 06.07.2012 while remanding the matter is required to be extended or not - Held that:- it is well accepted principle that where a period is fixed by the Court for doing any act, the Court may in its direction from time to time enlarge such period even though the period originally fixed or granted may expire. If a Court can grant time to do a thing, in the absence of specific provision to the contrary it can also enlarge the same period and there would be inherent powers to extend the time initially fixed by it - time period of six months fixed by the Tribunal was not in accordance with the powers conferred by any statutory act but the same was fixed by the Tribunal in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and keeping in view the interest of both the sides. Admittedly, when the Tribunal is having the power and jurisdiction to direct the lower authorities to complete the denovo adjudication within a particular period, it has the jurisdiction to extend the said period also on cause being shown by the concerned authorities - there are genuine reasons for not completing the investigations by the Designated Authority and inasmuch as the Designated Authority has already filed its final report and inasmuch as based upon the said report, a notification No. 15/13-Cus (ADD) dated 03.07.2013 already stands issued by the Government of India, we deem it fit to extend the period already granted by the Tribunal by the end of 05.08. 2013 - Decided against the assessee. Issues:Extension of time period granted by the Tribunal for completing investigations by the Designated Authority.Analysis:The judgment involves the consideration of three miscellaneous applications, two by the Designated Authority and one by a company, seeking an extension of the time period granted by the Tribunal in a previous order. The Tribunal had directed the continuance of anti-dumping duty and completion of investigations within six months from the date of the order. The Designated Authority cited genuine reasons for the delay in completing the investigation, including the unavailability of the President's post and subsequent delays in listing the application. The Designated Authority eventually completed its investigations and filed a final report, leading to the issuance of an anti-dumping duty notification by the Ministry of Finance. The issue before the Tribunal was whether the time period granted by the Tribunal needed to be extended due to the delays faced by the Designated Authority.The Tribunal considered arguments presented by both sides, including the opposition from an association represented by an advocate who contended that the time period fixed by the Tribunal should not be extended beyond the original six months. The advocate relied on a Supreme Court decision regarding the expiration of a prescribed period under a specific Act without the power to extend it. However, the Tribunal distinguished this case from the present matter, emphasizing that the six-month period was not fixed by the Tribunal under any legislative jurisdiction.Additionally, the Tribunal examined a Supreme Court decision related to the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, highlighting the importance of adhering to specified time limits under the Act. The Tribunal concluded that this decision was not directly applicable to the current case as the time limit was not affixed by the Tribunal based on any legal provision. Another Supreme Court decision concerning the extension of time for a tenant to compensate a landlord was also considered, emphasizing the court's inherent power to extend time limits initially fixed by it.Ultimately, the Tribunal applied the principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the extension of time periods fixed by the court. Considering the genuine reasons provided by the Designated Authority for the delay, the completion of investigations, and the issuance of the anti-dumping duty notification, the Tribunal granted the extension of the time period until 05.08.2013, as requested by the Designated Authority. The Tribunal rejected the association's objection to the extension, noting that the application for extension was filed before the original time limit expired and delays in processing the application were beyond the Designated Authority's control.