2017 (10) TMI 466 - AT - Customs

Company appeals on Anti-Dumping Duties dismissed due to delay of 246 days

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals by a company against the Designated Authority's final findings on Anti-Dumping Duties due to a delay of 246 days. The ... Continuation of ADD - Maintainability of appeal - order from Department of Revenue is missing - Held that: - admittedly, in these 2 appeals before us, there are no orders by the Department of Revenue regarding imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on the subject goods. In fact, the present appeals are only against the recommendations made by the DA - similar appeals came up before the Tribunal, where there was no order by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance to impose any ADD on goods in terms of Section 9 in the case of Panasonic Energy India Co. Ltd. & Others [2017 (9) TMI 63 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that there is no determination of ADD levy by notification as published in the official gazette by the Central Government under Rule 18 and, as such, the appeals under Section 9C in the present case are not maintainable. In the absence of any order or Notification issued by the Department of Revenue in terms of Customs Tariff Act or the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995, no appeal lies with the Tribunal - appeal are not maintainable and are dismissed. Issues:1. Delay in filing appeals against final findings of Designated Authority.2. Admissibility of appeals under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act.3. Maintainability of appeals against recommendations of Designated Authority.4. Legal justification for considering information obtained under RTI Act as an order.5. Determination of levy of Anti-Dumping Duty by the Central Government.Detailed Analysis:1. The judgment deals with two appeals by a company against final findings of the Designated Authority (DA) regarding Anti-Dumping Duties. The appeals were filed with a delay of 246 days, which the appellant sought condonation for due to consulting their Counsels regarding feasibility. The Tribunal noted the delay but considered the admissibility of the appeals itself as a matter to be examined under legal provisions.2. The main issue revolves around the admissibility of the appeals under Section 9C of the Tariff Act. The DA's recommendations were contested by the appellant, but the DA is considered a recommending authority without any orders by the Department of Revenue regarding the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on the subject goods. The Tribunal referred to previous cases and legal precedents to determine that appeals against recommendatory final findings of the DA are not maintainable without a determination by the Central Government.3. The DA's recommendations were challenged by the appellant, but the Tribunal found that in the absence of any order or notification by the Department of Revenue regarding the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty, the appeals were not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals based on the legal analysis that no determination of ADD levy by notification as published in the official gazette by the Central Government was present.4. The judgment also delves into the legal justification for considering information obtained under the RTI Act as an order. The Tribunal found no legal basis for inferring that information obtained through RTI can be equated to a notification issued under the official gazette in terms of statutory powers vested in the Central Government. The appeals only impugned the final findings of the DA, which were considered as recommendations only.5. The final part of the judgment emphasizes the importance of a determination of levy of Anti-Dumping Duty by the Central Government through a notification in the official gazette. Without such a determination, appeals under Section 9C of the Tariff Act were deemed not maintainable. The Tribunal relied on legal precedents and previous decisions to dismiss the appeals based on the absence of orders or notifications from the Department of Revenue regarding the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty.