https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101520 Statutory standing to challenge an anti-dumping notification was confined to a person suffering a legally cognisable grievance; mere participation in the investigation or status as an interested party did not confer the right to appeal, so the appellant was treated as not aggrieved and the appeal was not maintainable. A cross-objection under section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act required express statutory authority; procedural rules could not create that right or import the Customs Act mechanism into anti-dumping proceedings. As no statutory basis existed, the cross-objection was also not maintainable, and both were rejected without examination of the merits. en-us Mon, 04 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:49:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101520 Statutory standing to challenge an anti-dumping notification was confined to a person suffering a legally cognisable grievance; mere participation in the investigation or status as an interested party did not confer the right to appeal, so the appellant was treated as not aggrieved and the appeal was not maintainable. A cross-objection under section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act required express statutory authority; procedural rules could not create that right or import the Customs Act mechanism into anti-dumping proceedings. As no statutory basis existed, the cross-objection was also not maintainable, and both were rejected without examination of the merits. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 04 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101520