TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 370
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e (DR) - for the respondent Shri Jitender Singh, Advocate - for R - 3. ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran These two appeals were earlier listed on 05/09/2016 and were disposed-of as the appellants had challenged the same impugned final finding and customs notification in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court through writ petitions. While disposing-of the appeals, the Tribunal observed that the appellants are at liberty to come again after having the final verdict from the Hon'ble High Court. The appellants have now filed misc. applications for restoring their appeals which got disposed-of through the above mentioned final order. 2. We have perused the miscellaneous application for restoring the appeals. We note that the appeals were against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions holding that the petitioner is at liberty to approach CESTAT with fresh petitions in terms of the liberty already granted by the CESTAT. Accordingly, the appellants filed these applications for restoration of their appeals and to hear the matter on merit. 4. It is also to be noted that during the pendency of the proceedings in the Delhi High Court, respondent No.3, domestic industry (DI) filed appeal before the Tribunal which was disposed-of upholding the notification enforcing AD duty. 5. With the above background, having heard the applicant and the other interested parties including learned Counsel for the DA, we recall our earlier order dated 05/09/2016 and restore the appeals to their original numbers. As the appellants requ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. The learned Counsel submitted that the findings of the DA were factually incorrect regarding direction given to SCSL and SEC (S). No such direction was given and no communication was addressed. The disclosure statement was issued on 03/01/2015 much after the public hearing. Both SEPL and SETL filed complete questionnaire response. As other related entities were not involved in manufacture or sale of subject goods, the question of their filing EQR does not arise. 8. Relying on the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in M/s Nirma Limited (SCA 16426-2016 dated 23/02/2017, the learned Counsel submitted that if a fact is not disclosed under Rule 16, the same cannot be used by the DA to arrive at a finding under Rule 17. 9. No EQR co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the receipt of application from M/s Manali Petro Chemicals Limited up to the date of issue of a final finding, the learned Counsel for the DA emphasized that the DA has followed all the procedures as per the norms. He drew our attention to the specific findings recorded by the DA in this regard . The learned AR for the Revenue and the learned Counsel for respondent No.3 (DI) supported the final findings and the customs notification. 12. We have heard all the sides to the dispute and perused the appeal record. As noted above, the appellants' main challenge against the imposition of AD duty is on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The appellants are aggrieved that the final finding is contrary to the facts published ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect a due finding on actual export price, selling price for domestic sales, actual cost of production, movement of subject goods etc. 14. We notice that the disclosure statement was issued in the present case on 03/01/2015. Comments were called for up to 08/01/2015. The said comments were examined by the DA along with other relevant responses and materials. The disclosure statement is primarily to make public the data, information and essential facts as made available to the DA for forming an opinion. In case any of the interested parties considers that certain facts or information of significant importance has not been properly considered or has been left- out, the same can be brought to the notice of DA for due consideration. In other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... taken, will lead to a situation of cyclical hearing and re-hearing by the DA. In other words, rebuttal of the facts submitted by the DI, after disclosure, are again to be made available to the DI for further comments. We note that such chain of action of alternating the submissions of interested parties and rebuttal again cannot be considered as essential requirement of due process. The said proposition will only lead to indefinite cycle of re-consideration/rebuttal and further submissions. We note that the appellants were aggrieved with the final findings was contrary to the disclosure statement. We find that it is not anybody's case that the final finding, as such, should be as per disclosure statement only. That will be against the conc....