S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. The Revenue is aggrieved with the Order-in-Appeal C Cus. No. 206/02, dated 20-5-2002, by which, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the lower authority's demand raised by the Show Cause Notice, on the imported goods "Photographic papers" on which, Anti-dumping Duty at the rate of US $ 390-70 per 1000 Sq.m., as per the Notification No. 93/2000, dated 21-6-2000, was required to be paid by the importers. The Commissioner has set aside the demand following the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Agfa Gevaert A.G. v. Designated Authority reported in 2001 (130) E.L.T. 741 (Tri. - Delhi), wherein the Tribunal had quashed the said notification for the reasons recorded in the order. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted the ratio of the order and has held that the Tribunal's judgment fully covers the issue and hence the order of the lower authority was set aside. The revenue is aggrieved with this order. It is contented in the grounds of appeal that the notification is still in existence, it is neither withdrawn nor modified even after the decision of the Tribunal and hence the Commissioner was not proper in setting aside the lower authority's order.
2. Ld. DR Shri C. Mani submitted that the Tribunal's order is under appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Tribunal's order has not become final and hence the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order should be set aside.
3. Ld. Advocate Shri S. Murugappan explained the procedure or imposing of the anti-dumping duty and pointed out that the preliminary notification was issued by Notification No. 93/2000, dated 23-6-2000 and in terms of the said rules an enquiry was done and a final Notification No. 149/2000, dated 21-12-2000 was issued, in which, the name of importer had not been mentioned. He submitted that the notification in question was itself quashed by the Tribunal on the ground that mere is no injury caused to the domestic industry and the same has not been established and hence the designated authority was not justified in imposing anti-dumping duty in terms of the final notification. He submits that when the notification itself has been set aside, therefore, there was no question of imposing the duty solely because the revenue has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He further submits that there is no stay of the operation of the Tribunal's order and hence the said order is binding on all the authorities including an coordinate Bench.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides, we notice that the Tribunal (Anti-dumping Bench) in the case Agfa Gevaert A.G. v. Designated Authority (supra) has gone into great detail on the validity of imposition of Anti-dumping Duty on the imported goods. After detailed consideration, the Tribunal has held that the Designated authority has not established that the domestic industry has been injured on account of import of goods in question and hence has quashed the final notification itself. The Tribunal's order has not been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) order following the ratio of the Tribunal's order is a correct and legal order. Once the notification has been quashed, there is no question of the same being still in existence as contented in the appeal memo. There is no merit in the appeal and hence the same is rejected. Ordered accordingly.