Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 1294 - HC - CustomsAlternative statutory remedy of appeal - right to appeal against determination of dumping for imposing anti-dumping duty - Negative findings - Absence of Notification - Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - The writ petitioner resists and questions the plea of alternative remedy, stating that the appellate remedy under Section 9C of the CT Act cannot be invoked against the termination order under Rule 14 of the Rules. Held that:- Section 9C of the CT Act in the present case has to be interpreted in a manner so as not to frustrate its purpose i.e. to provide appellate remedy both in cases of "order of determination" and review. Accordingly, it will be contrary and would be against the legislative intent to hold and interpret that there is no right to appeal under Section 9C of the CT Act, when the Designated Authority does not propose imposition of anti-dumping duty. As the Central Government is bound by the final finding of the Designated Authority, the final finding of the Designated Authority becomes the final finding and "order of determination" passed by the Central Government for the purpose of Section 9C of the CT Act - the statute i.e. Section 9C would be interpreted in a manner that it would effectuate and not frustrate the purpose of the legislation that a party should have a right of appeal against the quasi judicial determination in relation to orders determining existence, degree and effect of any subsidy or dumping of articles imported into India. Section 9C does not state and provide that an appeal is maintainable against customs notification. However, it refers to and states that an appeal would lie against the "order of determination" regarding existence, degree and effect of dumping. The words "existence, degree and effect of dumping" are significant. The final finding of the Designated Authority in the said aspect can be in positive i.e. when it recommends imposition of anti-dumping duty or may be in negative when it finds and holds that no anti-dumping should be imposed. Upon negative finding by the Designated Authority no further action is contemplated and required by the Central Government - Contention of the petitioner that the "order of determination" would mean notification imposing anti dumping tax and not a negative final finding of the Designated Authority under Rule 17, which is not recommendatory but the final determination, is erroneous and bad in law. In case of negative determination the finding of the Designated Authority is binding, it gives no discretion to the Central Government. Thereupon, the determination becomes the determinative order in the sense that no anti-dumping duty can be imposed - Negative finding of the Designated Authority does not require a notification, a legislative act, ergo the said final finding gets stamped and approved by the Statute itself as binding decision of the Central Government. The argument of the petitioner that Section 9C postulates an appeal only against "order of determination" in the form of notification imposing anti dumping duty and not against the negative final finding of the Designated Authority, is therefore rejected. Thus, the plaintiff has equitable efficacious alternate remedy to challenge the impugned order under Section 9C of the CT Act before the Appellate Tribunal - liberty given to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 9C of the CT Act. Petition dismissed being not maintainable.
|