Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an appeal lies against the final finding of the Designated Authority under the anti-dumping provisions, and whether the appeal could be kept pending after expiry of the anti-dumping duty period.
Analysis: The appeal was directed against the final finding of the Designated Authority, whereas the settled position was that no appeal lies against such final finding and that the appealable event is the notification imposing anti-dumping duty by the Government. No material was shown that any anti-dumping duty notification had been issued pursuant to the final finding. In any event, the anti-dumping duty, if imposed, would cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of imposition under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, and more than five years had elapsed from the date of the notified finding.
Conclusion: The appeal was not maintainable against the final finding and had in any case become unnecessary to prosecute.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Designated Authority's final finding was rejected and the appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: An appeal does not lie against the final finding of the Designated Authority in anti-dumping proceedings, and once the statutory life of the anti-dumping duty has expired, the appeal need not be kept pending.