Full Text
31.
ALCATEL-LUCENT INDIA LIMITED Petitioner
Through: Mr Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr T. D. Satish, Mr Ankur Sharma, Mr Darpan Bhuyan and Mr Angad Sandhu, Advocates.
Through: Mr Ashish Dholakia and Mr Abhijit Mittal, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Ms Reena Khair and Mr Rajesh Sharma, Advocates for Respondent No.3.
32.
ALCATEL-LUCENT SHANGHAI BELL CO.
LTD. Petitioner
Through: Mr Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr T. D. Satish, Mr Ankur Sharma, Mr Darpan Bhuyan and Mr Angad Sandhu, Advocates.
Through: Mr Ashish Dholakia and Mr Abhijit Mittal, Advocates for Respondent Nos.l & 2.
Ms Reena Khair and Mr Rajesh Sharma, Advocates for Respondent No.3.
2016:DHC:8928-DB JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
30.05.2016 CM No.21555/2016 in W.P.(C) 5182/2016
CM No.21557/2016 in W.P.(C) 5183/2016
ORDER
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 5182/2016 & CM No.21554/2016 W.P.(C) 5183/2016 & CM No.21556/2016
2. Against the impugned final notification dated 5^*^ February 2016, issued by the Central Government imposing anti-dumping duty on imports of Synchronous Digital Hierarchy Transmission Equipment ('subject goods') originating in or exported from People's Republic of China for another period of five years, there is an alternative remedy provided under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 of an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT'). The challenge is also laid to the impugned Customs Notification dated 26^*^ April 2016 levying anti dumping duty on the abovementioned subject goods.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, states that there is a huge pendency of matters in the CESTAT and that the appeals filed against the earlier notifications, issued several years ago, are unable to be taken up. He accordingly submits that this Court should entertain the present writ petition.
4. The Court does not find the above plea to constitute a sufficient justification to permit the Petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy of an W.P. (C) 5182-83/2016 Page 2 of[3] appeal providedunderthe Customs TariffAct, 1975. It wouldbe opento the Petitionerto requestthe CESTAT, as and when an appeal is filed, to dispose it expeditiously.
5. The petitions and the applications are dismissed with the above observations. MAY 30, 2016 MK fV.P.fCJ 5182-83/2016 S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J Page 3 of[3]