TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 467
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y M/s. SI Group India Pvt. Ltd. against two different final findings of the Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The issue involved is similar in both these appeals and hence, these are taken up together. 2. Before proceeding with the main appeals, we note that the appellant filed Misc. Applications for condonation of delay in filing these appeals. There is delay of 125 days. The ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the final findings are dated 01.07.2016. On being aware of the final findings, they approached their Counsel for filing appeal against the same. The Counsel advised them on the legal provisions of Section 9C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....In his final finding dated 01.07.2016 the D.A. recommended that there is no need for continued imposition of ADD on the import of subject goods come from subject counties. 5. The appellant submitted communication dated 23.12.2016, which is issued by CPIO of Department of Revenue as a reply to request for information under RTI Act. The Note-sheet of the file of the Ministry reveals that the recommendation of the D.A. for not continuing A.D. Duty was accepted by the Ministry of Finance. 6. In appeal No.AD/50457/2017, almost identical situation is with reference to Anti-Dumping Duty on phenol originating in or exported from Japan and Thailand. The DA vide his final finding dated 08.10.2010 recommended imposition of definitive ADD on the subj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inuation of A.D. Duty on the subject goods. 11. We have heard all the sides and perused the appeal records. These 2 appeals are basically against final findings of the D.A. recommending that there is no need for continued imposition of ADD on the import of acetone/phenol. There are no orders by the Department of Revenue regarding imposition of ADD. The appellants apart from contesting the final findings in sunset review by D.A., submitted replies received under RTI Act from the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue. We have considered the submissions of the ld. Counsel and the objections raised by the ld. Counsels for the D.A. and the ld. A.R. for Revenue. We are considering first the maintainability of these appeals before the Tribun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ued by the Department of Revenue formed subject matter of this appeal. 10. This brings us to the main question, whether present appeals are maintainable under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal in Indian Spinners Association Vs. Designated Authority reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 299 (Tribunal) held that the DA is purely a recommending authority. The determination of levy of ADD is by the Central Government. As the Central Government did not determine imposition of ADD, no appeal could be considered against the finding of the Designated Authority. The Tribunal relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. (supra). It is clear that no appeal can lie against recommendatory final finding of the DA....