Dismissed

Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Sept 2017W.P.(C)/7887/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Delhi dismissed a writ petition seeking inspection of an anti-dumping investigation file. The Court found the petitioner's claim of delayed knowledge of the notification unconvincing and its request for inspection lacked bona fides, noting that interested party details were available in the Final Findings. The petition was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mita India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~53

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P. (C) No. 7887/2017

¶4

MITA INDIA PVT. LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Ms. Rita Jha, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh and Prateek Dhanda, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

¶9

O R D E R % 06.09.2017

¶10

The Petitioner seeks a direction to the Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry (‘DA’) to permit inspection of the public file pertaining to the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Seamless tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of iron, alloy or non-alloy steel' (other than cast iron and stainless steel) whether hot finished or cold drawn or cold rolled of an external diameter not exceeding 355.6 or 14" OD" from China PR.

¶11

It appears that the Initiation Notification was issued on 8^th July, 2015. Thereafter the Final Finding was issued by the DA on 9^th December 2016, followed by the Notification dated 17^th February 2017.

¶12

W.P.(C) 7887/2017

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

It is not disputed that, against the Final Findings and Notification, there is remedy available to the Petitioner before the Customs Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘CESTAT’).

¶15

On 27^th June 2017, the Petitioner addressed a letter to the DA stating that, for the purposes of filing an appeal before the CESTAT, it required the list of interested parties along with their complete addresses and a copy of the disclosure statement. The above request was made more than four months after the Notification dated 17^th February 2017.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner claims that the Petitioner became aware of the Notification dated 17^th February 2017 only in the second week of May, 2017 and therefore could not make the above request earlier. This explanation is not convincing. The Notification, having been gazzetted, is presumed to have been in the knowledge of the Petitioner. Further, the provisional duty during the period of investigation was already in force for more than a year and was to the knowledge of the Petitioner. It appears to the Court that, having missed its opportunity of filing its appeal in the CESTAT within time, the Petitioner was seeking to build an alibi to explain its delay and therefore applied for inspection of the DA’s file.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that, without the address of the interested parties, it cannot file an appeal before the CESTAT. It is noticed that the names of the interested parties are set out in the Final Findings itself. With most of them being companies, it should not have been difficult for the W.P.(C) 7887/2017 Page 2 of 3

¶18

Petitioner to ascertain their addresses. The Court is not satisfied about the bonafides of the Petitioner’s request to the DA.

¶19

The petition is dismissed.

¶20

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

¶21

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶22

SEPTEMBER 06, 2017 dk

¶23

Page 3 of 3

¶24

W.P.(C) 7887/2017

Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mita India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Aggarwal Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Vijay Mohan Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Roopram Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Union Public Service Commission Vs Poutluri Srikanth Kumar

Delhi Cantonment Board Vs the Station House Officer P S Delhi Cantt and Anr.

Spl Industries Ltd.(through the Manager Commerical Sh.Sanjay Jain Vs Union Ofo India & Others

Ram Raj Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Pr. Commissioner of Income TAX-6, New Delhi Vs New Video Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Income Tax Del Vs M/S Zohra Emporium

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Dlf Ltd.

Aggarwal Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes

Jitf Water Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Union of India & Anr.

Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.