Tribunal excludes stay period, upholds COVID extension, rejects vitiation claim, denies interim relief

The Tribunal concluded that the period during which the stay order was operative should be excluded. It also found that the notification issued on 05.04.2021 was within the extended time limit due to COVID-19 extensions. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the proceedings were vitiated by the delay in issuing the notification. The application for interim relief was denied, with a clarification that the observations in the order would not prejudice the parties in the final appeal hearing on merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Rule 18 of the 1995 Anti-Dumping Rules.
2. Exclusion of the period during which a stay order was operative.
3. Applicability and impact of COVID-19 related extensions on the limitation period.
4. Alleged breach of principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Rule 18 of the 1995 Anti-Dumping Rules:
The appellants contended that the notification dated 05.04.2021 was issued beyond the three-month period stipulated under Rule 18 of the 1995 Anti-Dumping Rules. They argued that the mandatory provisions of Rule 18 were violated since the notification was not issued within three months from the date of publication of the final findings by the designated authority on 01.09.2020. The appellants relied on the decisions in *Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry vs. J.K. Industry Ltd.* and *Nirma Limited vs. Union of India* to support their contention that the law of limitation must be enforced strictly.

2. Exclusion of the Period During Which a Stay Order Was Operative:
The respondents argued that the period during which the stay order granted by the High Court was operative should be excluded from the three-month period stipulated under Rule 18. The High Court had granted an interim order on 13.10.2020, which continued until the judgment was delivered on 06.01.2021. The respondents contended that the Central Government could not take any decision during this period due to the stay order. The Constitution Bench decision in *Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal and Others* was cited to support the exclusion of the period during which the stay order was in effect.

3. Applicability and Impact of COVID-19 Related Extensions on the Limitation Period:
The respondents also argued that the time limit prescribed under Rule 18 was extended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. They relied on the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 and the interim orders passed by the Supreme Court in "RE: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation." These orders extended the period of limitation for various proceedings due to the pandemic. The Supreme Court's order dated 08.03.2021, which extended the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, was specifically cited.

4. Alleged Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants contended that the final findings were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and Rule 16 of the 1995 Anti-Dumping Rules. They argued that the designated authority failed to provide a fair opportunity to the interested parties to present their case. The High Court, in its judgment dated 06.01.2021, had noted the grievance regarding the violation of the principles of natural justice and observed that related issues such as determination of 'like article,' computation of non-injurious price, determination of dumping margin or injury margin, and adjustments made to landed value were intertwined and needed to be examined.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal examined the submissions and relevant provisions of the Tariff Act and the 1995 Anti-Dumping Rules. It concluded that the period during which the stay order was operative should be excluded. The Tribunal also considered the extensions granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and found that the notification issued on 05.04.2021 was within the extended time limit. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' contention that the proceedings were vitiated due to the delay in issuing the notification. The application for interim relief was denied, and it was clarified that the observations made in the order would not prejudice the parties when the appeal is finally heard on merits.

---