Case Law Details
Jindal Poly Film Ltd Vs Designated Authority & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
In a case involving clubbing of Advance Authorisations issued in 2004 and 2010, Delhi High Court has held that clubbing can be provided only if export obligation period of authorization issued at a prior point of time allowed under Paragraph 4.22 of the HoP has not expired. The High Court rejected clubbing as petitioner had made no application for extension of export obligation period under license dated 22-8-2004 and maximum period for extension had also expir It also held that amendment in HoP on 13-10-2011 was not applicable. (Jindal Poly Films Ltd. v. DGFT – Judgement dated 22-4-2019 in W.P.(C) 7806/2014, Delhi High Court)
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT
This order and judgment would decide the preliminary objection raised by the third respondent, M/s Fibertex Personal Care SDN BHD, not to exercise our discretion to entertain the present Writ Petition in view of the alternative statutory appellate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (‘CT Act‘ for short) before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘Appellate Tribunal’ for short).
2. M/s. Jindal Poly Film Limited vide the present writ petition has challenged the legality and validity of the termination order No.14/23/2015- DGAD dated 2nd September, 2017 passed by the Designated Authority under Rule 14 of the Customs Tariff (Anti Dumping) Rules, 1995 [‘Rules’ for short].
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
