Court dismisses appeal on Anti-Dumping Duty levy for non-compliance with pre-deposit rule.

The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning the short levy of Anti-Dumping Duty due to non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act. The court ruled that the petitioner should have pursued a statutory appeal under Section 130 for substantial questions of law against the interlocutory order, rather than filing a writ petition. The court emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures and left open the option for the petitioner to invoke Section 130 if deemed appropriate.

---

---

Issues: Allegation of short levy of Anti-Dumping Duty, Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, Maintainability of writ petition, Recourse under Section 130 for statutory appeal on substantial question of law against an interlocutory order.

The judgment addresses the case of an importer facing an allegation of short levy of Anti-Dumping Duty. The petitioner filed appeals before the first respondent and subsequently before the second respondent Tribunal, which was dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to deposit the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal's order highlighted the non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement as the reason for dismissal.

The issue of the maintainability of the writ petition was raised by the first respondent, arguing that the petitioner should have filed a statutory appeal before the Division Bench under Section 129 of the Act. The petitioner's counsel contended that the order in question was interim and not on merits. They argued that under Article 226, the court could waive the pre-deposit and direct the Tribunal to hear the matter on its merits.

The judgment referred to a previous decision on the matter of whether a statutory appeal on a substantial question of law under Section 130 could be pursued against an interlocutory order. The court had previously held that the appropriate recourse for the petitioner would be under Section 130, involving a statutory appeal before a Division Bench. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the option left open for the petitioner to invoke Section 130, subject to any other statutory constraints that may apply.

---