Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell Co. Ltd. v. The Designated Authority & ORS.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

9.

+* W.P.(C) 2507/2016 4& CM No.10724/2016 ALCATEL-LUCENT SHANGHAI BELL LTD Petitioner Throughi Mr Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr T. D. Satish, Mr Ankur Sharma, Mr Daipan Bhuyan and Mr Angad Sandhu, Advocates, versus THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY & ORS Respondents Through: Mr Ashish Dholakia and Mr Ahhijit Mittal, Advocates for Respondent Nos.l & 2.

Ms Reena Khair and Mr Rajesh Sharma, Advocates for Respondent No.3.

WITH 10.

W.P.(C) 2508/2016 & CM No.10726/2016 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.

versus THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY & ORS.

Respondents Through: Mr Ashish Dholakia and Mr Ahhijit Mittal, Advocates for Respondent Nos.l & 2.

Ms Reena Khair and Mr Rajesh Sharma, Advocates for Respondent No.3.

CORAM:

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

ORDER

Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing.

Pass 1 of 2 W.P.(C) 2507-08/2016

% 30.05.2016

1. 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 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').

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, states that there is 3 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.

3. The Court does not find the above plea to constitute a sufficient justification to permit the Petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy of an appeal provided under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It would be oper to the Petitioner to request the CESTAT, as and when an appeal is filed, to dispose © it expeditiously.

4. The petitions and the applications are dismissed with the above observations.

S.MtrRALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J MAY 30, 2016/MK W.P.(C) 2507-08/2016