ORDER

1. Issue notice.

2. The learned counsel for Respondent 1 [in SLP (C) No. 15704 of 2005], who was the petitioner in the High Court and is the principal contesting respondent before us, is present in the Court.

3. Let the other respondents be served. Additional service through standing counsel is permitted.

4. List on 22-8-2005.

5. A notification in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of Section 9-A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Rules 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, has been issued by the Government of India on 27-4-2005. Statutory appeal under Section 9-C of the Act has been filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) and is awaiting hearing. Therein an application for stay has also been filed wherein orders are yet to be passed. In the meantime, Respondent 1, M/s Apollo Tyres Ltd. filed writ petition in the High Court. The High Court without noticing the petitioner herein, who was also the petitioner before the designated authority finally disposed of the petition after hearing only the learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India. The effect of the order would be to reopen the hearing before the designated authority.

6. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that the High Court should not have passed the impugned order without putting on notice the petitioner before us who was the petitioner before the designated authority and certainly had a right to be heard, inasmuch as the proceedings initiated at its instance had stood concluded by the issuance of Notification dated 27-4-2005 upholding its grievance.

7. We are also prima facie of the opinion that simultaneous invoking of the two jurisdictions, one the statutory appellate jurisdiction of CESTAT and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, is not justified. Inasmuch a statutory appeal is already pending, Respondent 1, who was the petitioner in the High Court, can also make appearance before the appellate authority. It is stated at this stage by the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent 1 before us that it has also filed its statutory appeal before CESTAT accompanied by an application for stay.

8. It is stated at the Bar that the Anti-Dumping Bench of CESTAT ordinarily sits for hearing on every Thursday and Friday of the week.

9. We direct the operation of the impugned order of the High Court dated 12-7-2005 to remain suspended until further orders. CESTAT shall take up the appeal filed by Respondent 1 on next Thursday i.e. 18-8-2005. Along with the appeal filed by Respondent 1 herein, any other connected appeals, if ready for listing, shall also be taken up for hearing on that day. CESTAT may expeditiously take up the appeals for hearing. However, the application for stay shall be taken up for consideration on 18-8-2005 itself.

Court Masters