APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application at the instance of the appellant in Appeal No. C/221/2002 -AD to condone delay in filing the appeal.

(2.) THE Designated Authority in its final finding dated 20 -7 -2001 recommended imposition of anti -dumping duty on the import of NBR into India. The recommendation was accepted and the Central Government issued Notification on 14 -9 -2001. Any appeal challenging the notification should have been filed on or before 13 -12 -2001. The present appeal was filed only on 15 -2 -2002. No application to condone delay was filed along with the appeal. Subsequently, COD No. 197/2002 -AD was filed on 22 -5 -2002. It is the case of the applicant that when it filed the appeal it was intended to be a cross appeal. If it was to be treated as cross appeal, it was filed in time since M/s. Korea Kuhmo International and M/s. Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. had filed separate appeals against the notification and they were pending. Since this Tribunal has taken the view in Ahimsa Mines and Minerals Ltd, v. Designated Authority - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 71 that no cross appeal/objection will lie in the appeal filed under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the memorandum of appeal is to be treated as appeal and not as cross objection. It is further contended that the delay has to be condoned and appeal taken up on merit,

(3.) WE are not inclined to accept the contention raised by the applicant. On a reading of the Memorandum of Appeal, it is seen that the appellant intended to file the same as an appeal. But for the purpose of escaping from the provision of limitation, the applicant submits that it has to be treated as cross appeal. Since cross appeal is held not maintainable, the applicant submits that memorandum is to be treated as a memorandum of appeal and not cross objection. We do not find the above as justifiable reason to condone delay in filing the appeal. Apart from the above, on going through the memorandum of appeal, it is seen that the challenge is against the final finding and not against the notification. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India