Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 92 - HC - CustomsAnti dumping duty - Disclosure Statement - Plain Gypsum Plaster Boards (hereinafter referred to as the `subject goods'), originating in or exported from China PR, Indonesia, Thailand and United Arab Emirates - writ petition - territorial jurisdiction of high court - held that:- petitioners have shown that they have sufficient cause of action for this Court to entertain the writ petitions. It has been shown that the petitioners are carrying on their business operations having their offices in Chennai, in the State of Tamilnadu. It has also been shown that certain imports of the subject goods are being made through the Chennai and the Tuticorin Ports. Provisional Anti-Dumpting Duties have also been levied on the imported goods, by the authorities in Chennai. As such, it can be held that, atleast a part of the cause of action for the filing of the writ petitoins had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Further, it is noted that, on certain earlier occasions, this Court had entertained writ petitions, wherein, similar issues had arisen, as in the present cases. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents concerned stating that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions cannot be accepted. Accordingly, this Court holds that the writ petitions are maintainable, before this Court. It would not be appropriate for this Court to interefere with the proceedings of the Designated Authority, at the stage of the issuance of the Disclosure Statement, by the said authority, under Rule 16 of the Anti Dumping rules, especiallly, in view of the fact that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason for such intereference. As such, the writ petitions are found to be premature in nature and that they have been filed based on a mere apprehension that the impugned Disclosure Statement issued by the Designated Authority would have an adverse effect on the petitioners, at the later stages of the proceedings. - writ petition dismissed.
|