P.G. Chacko, Member (J) - (1.)There are 4 applications before us, 2 in each of the appeals. One of the 2 applications in each of the appeals is for condonation of the delay involved in the filing of that appeal, and the other application is for waiver of pre -deposit and stay of recovery. The delay in each appeal is to the extent of 131 days. This delay has been explained in the applications.
(2.)When the lower appellate authority asked for pre -deposit, the appellants went to the High Court on the ground of financial hardships. When their petition was pending with the High Court, the lower appellate authority dismissed their appeals for non -compliance with the requirement of pre -deposit. When this was reported to the High Court, the High Court dismissed the Writ petition as infructuous, but giving liberty to the writ petitioners (appellants herein) to prefer appeal as per law against the final orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The order of the High Court was received by the party on 22 -10 -2002 and the present appeals were filed on 3 -12 -2002. There is a delay of 42 days from the date of receipt of the High Court's order, and a delay of 131 days from the date of communication of the final orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The explanation of delay is supported by an affidavit of Shri Rajendra Amrutlal Shah, Proprietor of the appellant -concern. The affidavit says, the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that it was thought that relief would be obtained from the High Court. Though these explanations are not very convincing, we are inclined to condone the delay for the ends of justice. The condonation applications are allowed and the remaining applications are adjourned to 15 -6 -2004. Counsel is directed To bring on record copies the relevant anti -dumping Notifications.