2016 (12) TMI 899 - HC - Customs

Levy of anti dumping duty (ADD) - Soda Ash - challenging the procedure undertaken by the designated authority - Jurisdiction of HC to writ entertain petition - the contention that entire exercise carried out by the designated authority is without taking into consideration that the domestic injury was operating under a protected regime - import from Peoples’ Republic of China, European Union, Kenya, Pakistan, Iran, Ukraine, USA - mid-term review - principles of natural justice - Held that: - the Supreme Court, in the facts of the said case, while vacating the interim relief, has held that the in the event of the Central Government forming an opinion to do so, all steps including the imposition of anti-dumping duty would be subject to the result of the petition pending before the High Court and that the High Court has the power to grant interim relief at any stage of the proceedings subject to a case in that regard being made out - the petitioners have been able to establish that the case falls within the well settled parameters for exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as discussed hereinabove. In that view of the matter, the contention that the petition ought not to be entertained as being premature, also does not merit acceptance.

Grant of interim relief - Held that: - the interim relief as granted earlier cannot be continued as the same may result in the lapse of the statutory period and render the proceedings infructuous. That, however, does not mean that the petitioners are not entitled to any interim relief - the court is of the view that the interests of all the parties could be balanced if the Central Government is permitted to proceed further pursuant to the final findings, if it so deems fit. If the Central Government decides not to revoke the anti-dumping duty, the present petitions may not survive. However, in case a notification revoking the anti-dumping duty is published in the Official Gazette, the interests of the petitioners can be taken care of by providing that in such an eventuality, such notification shall not be acted upon till the final hearing of the petitions. This would also take care of the interests of the private respondents who have stated that their right to get refund of the duty paid during the interregnum would arise only upon a notification under rule 18 of the rules being published.

The Central Government is permitted to proceed further pursuant to the final findings submitted by the designated authority. However, in case, pursuant to the impugned final findings recorded by the designated authority, the Central Government publishes a notification in the Official Gazette under rule 18 of the rules, the same shall not be acted upon till the final disposal of these petitions.