TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that there is no determination of ADD levy by notification as published in the official gazette by the Central Government under Rule 18 and, as such, the appeals under Section 9C in the present case are not maintainable. In the absence of any order or Notification issued by the Department of Revenue in terms of Customs Tariff Act or the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995, no appeal lies with the Tribunal - appeal are not maintainable and are dismissed. - AD/COD/50559 & 50560/2017-CU[DB] in AD/51112 & 51113/2017-CU[DB] - AD/56443-56444/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 17-8-2017 - (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President, Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Smt. Reena Khair, Advocate and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Rit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these appeals. 3. On preliminary hearing of the matter, we find that though there is a long delay in filing these appeals, the admissibility of these appeals itself is a matter to be examined in terms of legal provisions of Section 9C of the Tariff Act, we note that these appeals may be taken up, condoning the delay. 4. Appeal No.AD/51112/2017 is against final finding No.15/29/2014 dated 01.07.2016 of the DA pursuant to sunset review. Originally, the DA initiated investigation regarding possible dumping of Acetone, originating in or exported from Japan and Thailand. After following procedure, the DA issued the final finding on 19.01.2011 recommending definitive Anti-Dumping Duty on Acetone. Consequently, Customs Notification No.36 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ending authority and there is no Notification or Order by Revenue Department and as such, these appeals are not maintainable under Section 9 C of the Tariff Act. 8. Ld. Counsel for Respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 7 supported the Final Findings of the D.A. on merit. He submitted that the D.A. followed the required procedure and recorded his findings. He opposed the appeals on merit. 9. We have heard all the sides and perused the appeal records. We note that, admittedly, in these 2 appeals before us, there are no orders by the Department of Revenue regarding imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on the subject goods. In fact, the present appeals are only against the recommendations made by the DA. We note that similar appeals came up before the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te was approved by the Chairman, CBEC. Apart from this office file note sheet, no order issued 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 Che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal findings of the DA, which is a recommendation only. 12. In view of the above factual position and legal analysis, we note that there is no determination of ADD levy by notification as published in the official gazette by the Central Government under Rule 18 and, as such, the appeals under Section 9C in the present case are not maintainable. Accordingly, we dismiss all these appeals. 10. In the present cases, we find in the absence of any order or Notification issued by the Department of Revenue in terms of Customs Tariff Act or the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995, no appeal lies with the Tribunal. Following the ratio of the Tribunal in the Final Order dated 20.07.2017, we hold that these appeals are not maintainable. According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
