High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 10 P&H CK 0228

JSL Limited vs Union of India (UOI) and Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 8 October 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Alok Singh, J · A.K. Goel, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.P. No. 6544 of 2010

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 292 words

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This petition seeks quashing of findings dated 24.11.2009, notified by the designated authority i.e. Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties, excluding the items in question from the purview of anti dumping. The notification has been issued under the provisions of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short, "the Act") and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (for short, "the Rules").

2.

The Petitioner earlier filed CWP No. 19322 of 2009 which was disposed of on 18.12.2009. It was observed that plea of the Petitioner that there was deficiency in the investigation and that the designated authority had failed to take into account the view point of the Petitioner, could be considered by the Central Government.

3.

In the petition now filed, stand of the Petitioner is that inspite of observations in the order of this Court, the Central Government has not looked into the view point of the Petitioner.

4.

In the reply filed on behalf of the Central Government, it has been stated that application has been filed by the Petitioner for mid term review under Rule 23 of the Rules before the designated authority, which was being considered.

5.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents suggests that the Petitioner can be given a hearing on all relevant issues including the issues raised in this writ petition and decision thereon, can be taken by the designated authority in accordance with law.

6.

In view of above, it is not necessary to go into the issues raised in the writ petition at this stage. We, however, direct that proceedings be expedited and as far as possible, concluded within six months.

7.

The petition stands disposed of.