AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1471
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mping duty; B. Ex parte ad interim relief in terms of para 7 (A) above; and C. Such other and further relief(s) as may be deemed just and proper may be kindly granted in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience." 3. Civil Application (for impleadment) No.2 of 2019 is preferred with following prayers:- "a) Pass an order allowing the present application and impleading the Applicant as Respondent in the captioned Miscellaneous Civil Application in the Special Civil Application and directing the Petitioner to serve a copy of the captioned Miscellaneous Civil Application; or b) Pass an order allowing the present applicant as intervener in the captioned Miscellaneous Civil Application in the Special Civil Application and directing the Petitioner to serve a copy of the captioned Miscellaneous Civil Application; c) Pass an order rejecting the captioned Miscellaneous Civil Application in the captioned Special Civil Application; d) Pass an order modifying the reliefs granted in the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 03.07.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 4461 of 2019; and e) Pass such further and other relief....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t vide its judgment and order dated 11.6.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No.14202 of 2017 and allied matters, has held that the second respondent Designated Authority could not have annulled the Sunset Review and was required to bring the Sunset Review to its logical conclusion. The court has, accordingly, set aside the annulment and directed the respondents No.1 and 2 to do the needful for bringing the Sunset Review to its logical end strictly in accordance with law. 19 For the purpose of bringing the Sunset Review to its logical end, it goes without saying that it would have to be decided on merits. Therefore, if the period for completing the Sunset Review is not extended, the judgment and order dated 11.6.2018 passed by this court would be rendered ineffective. Under the proviso to rule 17(1)(a) of the rules, the Central Government, in its discretion, in special circumstances, can extend further the period of one year by six months. Thus, the Central Government is required to exercise discretion in special circumstances. Having regard to the findings recorded by this court in the judgment and order dated 11.6.2018 and the directions issued by it, this court is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded for a further period of six months under the first proviso to rule 17(1)(a) of the rules. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs." CA No.2 of 2019 in SCA No.5278 of 2019 "15. The Court is of the view that nothing prevented the respondents from approaching this Court for seeking appropriate relief / clarification. Unfortunately, close perusal of Office Memorandum dated 6.5.2019 reproduced hereinabove rather indicates the authority's conduct in avoiding the compliance with the Court's order. The author of the Office Memorandum clearly reveals uncanny and enigmatic recalcitrant approach on the part of the authority in complying with the order of this Court when these orders being not subjected to any further challenge or sought to be reviewed. The resultant effect of the two orders i.e. 24.4.2019 and 26.4.2019 left no room for any other option to the authority but to pass appropriate order and extend the antidumping duty notification. We are at pain to observe that para-6 of the Office Memorandum clearly betrays an unlawful and illegal examining by authority examining the orders of this court. Nothing prevented the respondents from a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order of the Delhi High Court, continued and acted as if the Notification dated 24.7.2014 was operational and pursuant thereto the collection of anti-dumping duty was continued on the subject goods. The original petition contains specific averment to this effect in paragraphs 14 to 16 and the respondent i.e. the Designated Authority, Director General of Trade Remedy as well as Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue or any other respondent did not put forward any pleadings qua the effect of Delhi High Court judgment and order dated 31.5.2018 rendered in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4810/2014 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.4886 of 2014 on the Notification dated 24.7.2014, so as to question the very petition and its prayer. 6.3 Learned counsel appearing for the applicant further submitted that not only did the respondent concerned acted under Notification dated 24.7.2014 and levied and collected the anti-dumping duty but the sunset review application dated 26.10.2018 was considered on merits and rejected on merits without even adverting to the judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court in respect of Notification dated 24.7.2014. In other words, it was submitted that the author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... their bare minimum liability to comply with the order of this Court which, in no way, would have affected their right to assail the order of this Court or seek clarification from the Court by way of review etc. The inaction on the part of the respondents in any of the direction and merely passing Office Memorandum in itself may not be permitted to render the petition and the order thereon infructuous. 6.6 This Office Memorandum is containing facts which indicate that the so-called acceptance of the judgment of the Delhi High Court is only a device to take a stand before the Court that the said Notification is no more in existence and it is a diametrically opposite stand taken only with a view to avoid compliance which otherwise is clearly enuring till date. Such practice is deprecated by this Court vide order dated 9.5.2019 passed in Civil Application No.2 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No.5278 of 2019. Relevant paragraphs of order dated 9.5.2019 read as under:- "11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents on advance copy places on record the Office Memorandum dated 6.5.2019. The same is also reproduced for the sake of ready reference. :Office Memora....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel after obtaining approval from the Revenue Secretary. 5. On 26th April, 2019 we had received another e-mail from Ms. Gargi Vyas, advocate for the petitioner, regarding another order of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, dated 26.04.2019, as informed the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in its order dated 26.04.2019 had suspended the effect and implementation of the notification No. 19/2019- Customs (ADD) dated 16.4.2019. It appears that the decision by the Hon'ble High Court dated 26.04.2019 was issued upon bringing to the Court's notice of the fact of rescinding of impugned notification. The order was served on us at 21:00 hrs on 26.04.2019. 6. In the said order, the Hon'ble High Court had suspended the extending notification No. 19/2019- Customs (ADD) dated 16.4.2019. While suspending the notification dated 16.04.2019 has not issued any further direction with reference to its earlier order dated 24.04.2019 for extending the validity of notification No. 39/20180-customs (ADD). The original validity of notification No. 39/2018-Customs (ADD) was upto 26.04.2019. However, upon acceptance of findings in sunset review, this notification was res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2014 had the effect of quashing and setting aside the Notification dated 24.07.2014 and, thereafter, though the anti-dumping duty levied and collected on the import of the subject goods, the same was not legal and proper and could not have been collected. The SLP filed by the concerned party before the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court only issued notice without granting any relief against operation of Delhi High Court judgment and, therefore, the Delhi High Court judgment which is, of course, subject matter of scrutiny by the Supreme Court cannot be said to be stayed or rendered inoperational so far as the Notification of 24.07.2014 is concerned, so as to give any right to the original petitioner to seek sunset review and further proceedings based upon its declining on whatsoever ground. Therefore, the entire challenge was based upon the premise of non-est Notification as the Notification of 24.07.2014 had been set aside by the Delhi High Court and pendency of SLP therefrom would not infuse any life into it in absence of any stay order or interim order by the Supreme Court. 8.1 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for applicant in Civil Application No.2 of 201....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Civil) No.4886 of 2014. In paragraph 2.2, one line mentions about acceptance of the order by the Government. If the Government has accepted the order then levying and collecting anti-dumping duty till 18.7.2019 remains to be answered. The conduct of the respondent did not show that the Delhi High Court Judgment was accepted right on the date it was rendered. Had the same been the case, there would not have been any existence or continuance of levying and collecting of anti-dumping duty on the subject goods. The counsel appearing for the applicant in Civil Application No.2 of 2019 very fairly submitted that all along the anti-dumping duty levying and collecting had not been stopped, though in some cases the goods were taken on furnishing the bonds and in some cases by payment of anti-dumping duty. Therefore, as stated herein above, the statement in Office Memorandum made on behalf of the Government leaves much to ponder, however, we hasten to add here that the said Office Memorandum is not under challenge before this Court but the same Office Memorandum is surely pressed into service to justify the inaction on the part of the authority, after receipt of the order of this Court dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts unfortunately instead of shouldering the responsibility and accepting its omission has rather betrayed and attempting to shirk its responsibility by issuing Office Memorandum dated 18.7.2019 as if the same was sufficient to explain or rather justify inaction on their part after they received the order of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4461 of 2019 dated 3.7.2019. The Office Memorandum dated 18.7.2019 also has effect of compounding the confusion at-least after 18.7.2019 as prior thereto all the concerned including the respondents themselves have acted as if the notification dated 24.7.2019 was operational and they rather levied and collected the antidumping duties on the subject goods. We hasten to add here that we do not, for a minute, countenance the collection of duty in case if it was found to be illegal nor do we endorse any attempt to justify the same. This Court was required to proceeds on a premise as if the respondents had continued with Notification dated 24.7.2014 and the sunset review was rejected on that basis. Therefore, this order may not be in any manner construed as giving any new life to the Notification as the earlier order is based upon the premi....