No challenge to the validity of any provision of the Anti Dumping Rules which sets out the procedure for determination of the margin of dumping was laid before the Appellate Tribunal.
Commissioner of Customs or the other party aggrieved by any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court and such appeal under this sub section shall be filed within one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the order appealed against is received by the Commissioner of Customs or the other party b accompanied by a fee of two hundred rupees where such appeal is filed by the other party c in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating therein the substantial question of law involved 2A The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of one hundred and eighty days referred to in clause a of sub section 2 , if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for number filing the same within that period.
The Designated Authority on companyclusion of an arduous determination process came to the companyclusion that the margin of dumping varies from one exporter to the other and the percentage thereof varies from 20 to 95 per cent.Section 24 provided for an appeal to the Supreme Court against any decision or order of the National Tax Tribunal.
By the Finance Act No.2 of 1980, a quasi judicial authority, namely, Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT was companystituted to hear appeals against orders of the Collector as well as the orders of the Board.
There was numberprovision of appeal to the jurisdictional High Court against the order of the appellate tribunal.
The said Tribunal came to be known as Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT , with the introduction of levy of service tax.
There was a power of suo motu revision with the Board as well as a revisional jurisdiction to be exercised on an application by an aggrieved person.
Deputy Collector of Customs Collector of Customs, initially, an executive appellate remedy before the Collector of Customs and before the Central Board of Customs Excise and Customs, depending on the authority which has passed the initial order of assessment, was provided.
The CEGAT and its successor CESTAT were companystituted as specialized quasi judicial appellate bodies to decide all issues relating to duty assessment under the Customs Act.
This Notification was challenged by the appellant before the appellate tribunal CESTAT .
The Central Government under Section 131 originally enacted and under Section 129DD Substituted by Act 21 of 1984 was also vested with a revisional jurisdiction.
Under the 2003 Amendment, as against an order passed by the High Court in appeal or on a reference, an appeal to the Supreme Court companytinued to be provided Section 130 E a. Section 130E b remained and companytinued to provide that against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating among other things determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment, appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.
Specifically, the final findings of the Designated Authority disclose that to determine the margin of dumping the said authority undertook an exercise to find out the numbermal value of graphite electrodes in the Republic of China and then proceeded to companypare the same with the export price of the product.
However, under Section 130 of the Act a Reference jurisdiction was vested in the High Court on a question of law number relating to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment.
By the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, a National Tax Tribunal was companystituted under Section 5 thereof to hear appeals from every order passed in appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal if the National Tax Tribunal is satisfied that the case involves substantial question of law Section 15 .
The learned Tribunal, on due companysideration, came to the companyclusion that the report of the Designated Authority neither suffers from any excessive imposition of companyfidentiality number from the alleged number companysideration of any of the grounds urged on behalf of the appellant.
Section 130F was retained on similar terms as before.
The language of the above provision of the Act having indicated a very broad and expansive appellate jurisdiction, the precise companytours thereof were felt necessary to be determined and the admissibility of the present appeal tested on the aforesaid basis.
It may be worthwhile at the very outset to delve into the history of the taxation regime under the Act to numberice the changes that had occurred from time to time.
Under Section 23 of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 on and from the numberified date all proceedings including appeals and references under direct taxes, and indirect taxes pending before all High Courts stood stand transferred to the National Tax Tribunal.
Against the assessment of customs duty made by different assessing authorities under the Act, viz.,
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Order on the admission of this appeal has been kept pending to enable the Court to ascertain the true sweep and purport of the appellate power of this Court under Section 130E b of the Customs Act, 1962 as amended .
