Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Relaxo Rubber Ltd. And M/S. Apar ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi on 18 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(76)ECC103, 2001(132)ELT56(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
K. Sreedharan
1. This application in filed by a stranger to the appeals No. C/77/2001-A and C/78/2001-A disposed of by us on 26-4-2001 under final order Nos. 164-165/2001-A. Before going into the merits of the case, we are to examine whether such a stranger to the appeal as the present petitioner is, can maintain application of this nature.
2. Proceedings for imposing anti-dumping duty on Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) exported from or originating in Korea, among other countries, was taken up by the Designated Authority constituted under the Anti-dumping provisions of the Customs Tariff Act. Pursuant to the finding arrived at by the Designated Authority, Government of India issued notification levying duty on such goods imported from Korea. The said notification was challenged before this Tribunal in appeals C/264/99-AD and C/332/99-AD. Those appeals were disposed of by this Tribunal on 2-2-2000 by final order No. 20 and 21/2000-AD. As per that order, the anti-dumping duty fixed by the Central Govt. in the notification was refixed as stated in the Table attached to that order. While anti-dumping duty on Styrene Butadiene Rubber exported from Korea was in force, M/s. Relaxo Rubber Ltd. and M/s. Relaxo Footwears Ltd. imported goods which were described in the Bills of Entry as Styrene Butadiene Co Polymers Resin Kosyn KHS 68 from Korea. Assessing authority, namely, Deputy Commissioner of Customs took the view that the goods imported were covered by the notification relating to anti-dumping duty on Styrene Butadiene Rubber and imposed duty on the consignments. The importers took the matter in appeal. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who dealt with the appeal, confirmed the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, the importers came up in appeal before this Tribunal. While disposing of that appeal, a Bench of this Tribunal observed that the goods imported were not Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SRB) in relation to which anti-dumping duty has been imposed. Consequently, imposition of anti-dumping duty on the goods covered by the three Bills of Entry was set aside and the goods directed to be released.
3. The petitioner herein, M/s. Apar Industries Ltd, moved this application with the following prayer:-
"That your Lordships may be pleased to recall/set aside the order dated 26-4-2001 after hearing the applicant herein as well as the Designated Authority to whom notice of this application may also kindly be issued. During the pendency of the present application, your Lordships may also consider passing of the exparte order thereby staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 26-4-2001."
4. Once anti-dumping duty is imposed by notification issued by the Central Govt. or as per the amended notification issued under the direction of the CEGAT, duty is to be levied by the officers of the Customs department, at the time of clearing the goods imported. Those actions of the Customs Officers in imposing duty under that notification will be actions on the part of the Customs Officers under the Customs Act, 1962. The said actions of the Customs Officers are open to challenge before the higher authorities or forums in terms of the provisions contained in the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act. Section 9A(8) of the Customs Tariff Act provides that the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and the rules and regulations made thereunder relating to non-levy, short-levy, refunds and appeals, shall, as far as may be, apply to the duty chargeable under this Section as they apply in relation to duties leviable under that Act. This means all questions relating to the duty chargeable under the provisions of Section 9A of the Tariff Act are to be dealt with and appeals there from entertained in conformity with the provisions contained in the Customs Act, 1962. So, the adjudication order when went against the importer was rightly challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) as provided by the Customs Act, 1962. When the decision of the appellate authority was against the importer, the only course open to the importer was to appeal to this Tribunal and not any other authority or forum. In the appeal filed before this Tribunal, the only party which was to be made a party to that appeal was the Customs authorities. Customs authorities were made party in that appeal. No other rival to the importer was necessary party or interested party in that appeal. A rival to the importer has no voice in the decision of this Tribunal in the appeal filed by the importer. He has no direct legal interest in the goods involved in the adjudication process either. The question that was dealt with by this Tribunal in that appeal was whether the goods imported were covered by the notification issued under the Anti-dumping provisions or not.
5. Locus standi of a party to approach this Tribunal against the order of Customs authorities came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Northern Plastics Ltd. vs. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd, 1997 (91) ELT 502. Their Lordships specifically opined that a rival in the business of the importer of the consignment cannot be considered to be a person aggrieved by the adjudicating order of the Collector of Customs for approaching this Tribunal. the petitioner before us is only a rival to the appellant in business and he is not interested in the goods sought to be cleared under the three Bills of Entry. Consequently, he is not a person entitled to move the petition of this nature. The petitioner herein cannot also be allowed to advance any argument as an intervenor even. This issue was also considered by the Apex Court in the decision of Customs and Central Norther Plastics Ltd. vs. Collector of Excise, 1998 (101) 549. In that case, CEGAT allowed a rival in the business to advance arguments as an intervenor. The procedure adopted by the CEGAT was challenged before the Apex Court. The argument advanced by the learned counsel was dealt with by their Lordships observing:
"We find much substance in this grievance made by the learned counsel. On the second occasion also CEGAT did not deal with the appellant fairly as it allowed its business rival to oppose the appeal as an intervenor."
So, as an intervenor also the petitioner herein cannot be allowed to advance any argument in the appeal preferred by M/s. Relaxo Rubber Ltd. and M/s Relaxo Footwears Ltd. So, we are clear in our mind that this application is ill-conceived.
6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner tried to advance many arguments on the nature of the goods imported. These contentions are not to be gone into by this Tribunal, for the petitioner herein is not to maintain this application. If the argument advanced by the counsel is to be accepted, then all clearances of goods effected by Customs authorities covered by anti-dumping duty will have to be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal with the Designated Authority on the array of party and the rivals in the business must also be mae parties. Such a course is not warranted by any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules.
7. In view of what has been stated above, the petition is dismissed.
Pronounced and dictated in the open court.