TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 652X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndings and the consequential Notification which are ex facie unsustainable and are non est in the eye of law - The Writ Petition is disposed off - 1365 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 17-3-2011 - J.P. Devadhar and Roshan Dalvi, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Advocate, Prakash Shah, Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Sagnik Sinha with Mihir Deshmukh i/b PDS Legal, for the Petitioner. S/Shri D.J. Khambata, ASG, R.K. Abhichandani, Sr. Advocate, Gautam Ankhad, Rohit Pandey i/b Dhiren H. Shah, Rajesh Sharma i/b Manoj L. Shirsat, and Pradeep S. Jetly, for the Respondent. [Order per : J.P. Devadhar, J. (Oral)]. The Petitioner company incorporated in China has filed this Petition to challenge the final findings recorded by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Andhra Pradesh High Court was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court by; its order, dated 19th March 2010 stayed the operation of the order except in the case of the petitioners who had filed Writ Petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court and directed that all other importers would have to pay the anti-dumping duty as per the notification dated 8th December 2009. By the said order, the D.A. was directed to proceed with the hearing and pass final order, which would be subject to the result of the Special Leave Petition. 5. Accordingly the D.A. on completion of the investigation, by its final findings published on 19th October 2010 held that the domestic industry has suffered material injury on account of import of SDH tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal as provided under the Custom Tariff Act, 1975. The permission, as prayed for, is granted. The special leave petitions stand disposed of as withdrawn. 8. Mr. Laxmikumaran learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition can be disposed off solely on the ground that the final findings published by the D.A. are in gross violation of the principles of Natural Justice, because in the present case, the petitioner who is an aggrieved party, was heard by one DA in the public hearing granted under Rule 6(6) of the Anti-dumping Rules, 1995 and the order in the form of final findings are passed by another DA which is wholly impermissible in law. 9. In support of the above contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses etc., and also clear up his doubts during the course of the arguments. Moreover, it was also observed in Gullapalli (supra), if one person hears and other decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. In the present case, admittedly, the entire material had been collected by the predecessor of the DA; he had allowed the interested parties and/or their representatives to present the relevant information before him in terms of Rule 6(6) but the final findings in the form of an order were recorded by the successor DA, who had no occasion to hear the appellants herein. In our opinion, the final order passed by the new DA offends the basic principle of natural justice. Thus, the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
