Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2011 DIGILAW 1234 (SC)

Tejas Networks Limited v. Union of India

2011-09-20

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD, H.L.DATTU

body2011
ORDER : Dattu, Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ. Leave granted in all the matters. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 22155/2009 dated 22.1.2010. By the impugned order, the High Court has set aside the preliminary findings of the Designated Authority under the provisions of Anti- Dumping Laws. 2. This Court, while entertaining the special leave petitions, had passed certain interim orders. 3. During the pendency of the special leave petitions and in view of the directions issued by this Court, the Designated Authority has passed its final findings. Being aggrieved by the final findings of the Designated Authority, the parties to the lis have approached the CESTAT. 4. The CESTAT, by its order dated 11.08.2011, has allowed the appeal and has remanded the matter to the Designated Authority with certain directions and observations. The operative portion of the orders passed by the Tribunal is reproduced as under: "15. Accordingly we allow these appeals by remand to the DA for affording post-decisional hearing to the appellants and for making such modifications to the final findings as may be necessary as a result of such post-decisional hearing. The respondent-domestic industry and other interested parties, if any, shall also be allowed to participate in such post-decisional hearing. Any modifications made in the final findings would be considered by giving effect to the same by the Government by carrying out the necessary amendments to the impugned notifications imposing anti-dumping duty. This process shall be completed within 6 months from the date of this order and status quo shall be maintained meanwhile. Since we are allowing the main appeals by remand, the MA(EH) and SPs stand disposed off". 5. In view of the disposal of the appeal by the CESTAT, Sh. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that civil appeal has now become infructuous. 6. Sh. Bagaria, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, would submit that the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the preliminary findings of the Designated Authority require to be agitated by this Court in the appeals filed by the appellant herein and, therefore, submits that the appeal need not be disposed of by this Court as having become infructuous. 7. We are not in agreement with Sh. 7. We are not in agreement with Sh. Bagaria, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 8. The undisputed facts are that the Designated Authority has passed its preliminary findings under the provisions of Anti- Dumping Laws. The preliminary findings of the Designated Authority was the subject matter before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 22155 of 2009. The High Court, by passing order dated 22.01.2010, has allowed the writ petition and has set aside the preliminary findings of the Designated Authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the special leave petition is filed by the appellant herein. 9. During the pendency of this appeal, the Designated Authority has passed its final findings also. Those final findings were questioned before the CESTAT by the parties to this lis. The CESTAT, though the special leave petition was pending before this Court, maybe because of the directions issued by the Bombay High Court, has disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter to the Designated Authority. 10. In view of these developments, in our opinion, it may not be necessary for this Court to go into the issues raised by the appellant herein. All those issues can be agitated by the parties before the Designated Authority itself. 11. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. The Designated Authority now will implement the orders passed by the CESTAT dated 11.08.2011 within the time granted. While doing so, the Designated Authority will not be influenced by any of the observations made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition no. 22155 of 2009 dated 22.1.2010. 12. We make it clear that we have not gone into the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the CESTAT dated 11.1.2011. Civil Appeal No. 8040 of 2011 13. Application for permission to file SLP is allowed. 14. In view of the orders passed by us in Civil Appeal No. 8038 of 2011, this appeal would not survive for consideration of this Court. Accordingly, the same is disposed of. Civil Appeal No. 8039 of 2011 15. In terms of the orders passed by us in Civil Appeal No. 8038 of 2011, this appeal is also disposed of. Appeal Partly allowed.