TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is clear that the provisions does not contemplate taking of the views from any party and it is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Central Government and the preliminary findings given by the 2nd respondent will only constitute a material, based on which the provisional duty is imposed. The respondents themselves have stated that the duty of the 2nd respondent, with regard to the provisional Safeguard Duty as well as the definite Safeguard Duty, is only recommendatory and is not binding on the Central Government. By the impugned notice dated 05.01.2018, the 2nd respondent had made certain preliminary findings and forwarded the same to the Government. Further, in the impugned proceedings dated 05.01.2018, the 2nd respondent has stated that a public hearing will be held in due course before making a final determination, for which the date will be informed separately - no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner for the reason that they will be given opportunity to make their submission before the Authority on the issues involved in the matter. At the time of making a final determination, the petitioner's views should be obtained and an opportunity of personal heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liminary findings notice, recommending exemption of Safeguard Duty on clearance made from SEZ to DTA, is without any authority and thus bad in law. Further, the preliminary findings notice, which fails to establish irreparable damage justifying such preliminary findings, also suffers from the vice of being arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3.The brief case of the respondents is as follows: (i)According to the respondents, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is premature and should be dismissed in-limine. The 2nd respondent has merely issued recommendations, which in terms of Rule 4(3) of the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997, has been submitted to the Central Government. The recommendations have been issued to the Standing Board of Safeguards, chaired by the Commerce Secretary, Government of India. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved at the present juncture, when only recommendation is made and Safeguard Duty has neither been determined nor imposed by the Government. (ii)The petitioner cannot be an interested party, while a party could be interested in an investigation in term ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , action can be taken without prior consultation, in such case, the petitioner has misconstrued the provisions of para 2 of Article XIX. As per Rule 9 of the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997, the Director General shall proceed expeditiously with the conduct of the investigation and in critical circumstances, may record preliminary findings regarding serious injury or threat of serious injury. The Director General (Safeguards) acted accordingly and the preliminary findings was recorded and issued on 05.01.2018. The final findings are yet to be issued and when issuing, these will take into consideration all the submissions made by the interested parties within a period of 30 days from the date of NOI and the submissions made during the public hearing to be held. (vi)The Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997, do not bar the Director General (Safeguards) from giving a preliminary findings at any point of time after issuance of NOI. The Director General (Safeguards) has only issued a preliminary findings, recommending provisional Safeguard Duty. The final findings are yet to be issued by the Director Gene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bhai Ishwarbhai Patel etc Vs. Union of India and another] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: ... 21.Before the hearing commenced we questioned each petitioner as to the foundation of his claim. We discovered that most of the petitioners had no real or apparent stake in the areas now declared to be Pakistan territory. These persons claim that they had and still have the fundamental rights guaranteed to them by Article 19 (1)(d), (e) and (f), that is to say, the right to travel, to reside or settle down, or to acquire, and hold property in these areas. None of them has so far made any move in this direction but their apprehension is that they will be deprived of these rights in the future. This, in our judgment, is too tenuous a right to be noticed by the Court in administering the law and still less in enforcing fundamental rights. When we communicated our view at an earlier hearing, some more petitioners came forward. Mr.Madhu Limaye puts forward the supporting plea that he had attempted to penetrate this area to reconnoiter possibilities for settlement, but was turned back. In this way he claims that he had attempted to exercise his fundamental rights ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the audi alteram partem rule should be followed before impounding a passport, but that is not conclusive of the question. If the statute makes itself clear on this point, then no more question arises. But even when the statute is silent, the law may in a given case make an implication and apply the principle stated by Byles, J., in Cooper v. Wandswort Board of Works [(1863) 14 CBNS 180 . (1861-73) All ER Rep Ext 1554]. A long course of decisions, beginning with Dr.Bentley's case and ending with some very recent cases, establish that, although there are no positive works in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature . The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice. In fact, there are two main principles in which the rules of natural justice are manifested, namely, nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem. We are not concerned here with the former, since there is no case of bias urged here. The question is only in regard to the right of hearing which involves the audi alteram partem rule. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi- judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far-reaching effect than a decision in a quasi- judicial enquiry. As observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala [(1969) 1 SCR 317] the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principles of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of the case. This view was reiterated and re-affirmed in a subsequent decision of this Court in D.F.O., South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi Singh [(1971) 3 SCC 864]. The law must, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... timate limits, to so interpret the municipal statute as to avoid confrontation with the comity of nations or the well established principles of international law. But if conflict is inevitable, the latter must yield. (v)(1992) 1 Supreme Court Cases 719 [Dalpat Kumar and another Vs. Prahlad Singh and others] wherein the Apex Court held as follows: ... 5.Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff by evidence aliunde by affidavit or otherwise that there is a prima facie case in his favour which needs adjudication at the trial. The existence of the prima facie right and infraction of the enjoyment of his property or the right is a condition for the grant of temporary injunction. Prima facie case is not to be confused with prima facie title which has to be established, on evidence at the trial. Only prima facie case is a substantial question raised, bona fide, which needs investigation and a decision on merits. Satisfaction that there is a prima facie case by itself is not sufficient to grant injunction. The Court further has to satisfy that non-interference by the Court would result in irreparable injury to the party seeking relief and that there is no other remedy ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia and another] wherein the Apex Court held as follows: ... 15.In Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Vinay Engg. Enterprises (P) Ltd. [(1994) 4 SCC 710] this Court lamented: 2.We are surprised, not a little, that the High Court of Calcutta should have exercised jurisdiction in a case where it had absolutely no jurisdiction. The contracts in question were executed at Aligarh, the construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh, even the contracts provided that in the event of dispute the Aligarh Court alone will have jurisdiction. The arbitrator was from Aligarh and was to function there. Merely because the respondent was a Calcutta-based firm, the High Court of Calcutta seems to have exercised jurisdiction where it had none by adopting a queer line of reasoning. We are constrained to say that this is case of abuse of jurisdiction and we feel that the respondent deliberately moved the Calcutta High Court ignoring the fact that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court. It clearly shows that the litigation filed in the Calcutta High Court was thoroughly unsustainable. (viii)2008 (226) E.L.T. 16 (S.C.) [Union of India Vs. Inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority shall, after it has decided to initiate investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping of any article, issue a public notice notifying its decision and such public notice shall, inter alia, contain adequate information on the following:- (i) the name of the exporting country or countries and the article involved; (ii) the date of initiation of the investigation; (iii) the basis on which dumping is alleged in the application; (iv) a summary of the factors on which the allegation of injury is based; (v) the address to which representations by interested parties should be directed; and (vi) the time-limits allowed to interested parties for making their views known. (2) A copy of the public notice shall be forwarded by the designated authority to the known exporters of the article alleged to have been dumped, the Governments of the exporting countries concerned and other interested parties. (3) The designated authority shall also provide a copy of the application referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 to - (i) the known exporters or to the concerned trade association where the number of exporters is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ping, and in respect of imports from specified countries, it shall also record a further finding regarding injury to the domestic industry and such finding shall contain sufficiently detailed information for the preliminary determinations on dumping and injury and shall refer to the matters of fact and law which have led to arguments being accepted or rejected. It will also contain:- (i) the names of the suppliers, or when this is impracticable, the supplying countries involved; (ii) a description of the article which is sufficient for customs purposes; (iii) the margins of dumping established and a full explanation of the reasons for the methodology used in the establishment and comparison of the export price and the normal value; (iv) considerations relevant to the injury determination; and (v) the main reasons leading to the determination. 2. The designated authority shall issue a public notice recording its preliminary findings. ... 64.Thus, the first and foremost question for adjudication is the nature of proceedings before the DA appointed by the Central Government under Rule 3 of the 1995 Rules for conducting investigations for the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of the authority to act judicially and the decision of the authority is a quasi-judicial act; and (ii) that if a statutory authority has power to do any act which will prejudicially affect the subject, then, although there are not two parties apart from the authority and the contest is between the authority proposing to do the act and the subject opposing it, the final determination of the authority will yet be a quasi-judicial act provided the authority is required by the statute to act judicially. 67.In Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Lakshmi Chand [AIR 1963 SC 677 : 1963 SUPP (1) SCR 242] , a Constitution Bench of this Court had observed that: 11. ...Often the line of distinction between decisions judicial and administrative is thin: but the principles for ascertaining the true character of the decisions are well-settled. A judicial decision is not always the act of a judge or a tribunal invested with power to determine questions of law or fact: it must however be the act of a body or authority invested by law with authority to determine questions or disputes affecting the rights of citizens and under a duty to act judicially. A judicial decision always postulat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f a written application by or on behalf of the domestic industry; sub-rule (4) thereof empowers the DA to initiate an investigation suo motu on the basis of information received from the Commissioner of Customs or from any other source. 70.When the DA has decided to initiate an investigation, Rule 6 requires that a public notice shall be issued to all the interested parties as mentioned in Rule 2(c) of the 1995 Rules, as also to industrial users of the product, and to the representatives of the consumer organizations in cases when the product is commonly sold at the retail level. It is manifest that while determining the existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping, the DA determines a `lis' between persons supporting the levy of duty and those opposing the said levy. 71.Further, it is also clear from the scheme of the Tariff Act and the 1995 Rules that the determination of existence, effect and degree of alleged dumping is on the basis of criteria mentioned in the Tariff Act and 1995 Rules, and an anti-dumping duty cannot be levied unless, on the basis of the investigation, it is established that there is: (i) existence of dumped imports; (ii) material injury ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construction of the term domestic industry as per Rule 2(b) of the Rules, which has undergone various amendments, as to whether by the amendment dated 27.2.2010, the discretionary power of the Designated Authority in respect of the domestic producers is taken away; and (iii) as to whether the finding of the learned Judge in respect of M/s.DCW Limited, which is forming part of Alkali Manufacturers Association of India, being a domestic producer, even though admittedly having 4% of the production, could be presumed to have 100% production so as to enable it have a jurisdiction to make representation to the Designated Authority, is correct in law. Point - (i) 20.Regarding the first issue in respect of the maintainability aspect of the writ petition in W.P.No.23515 of 2011, the learned Judge in the impugned order has held that inasmuch as the very jurisdiction of the Designated Authority in initiating proceedings is challenged in the writ petition, it cannot be held that the writ petition is not maintainable. 21.Even though it has been the contention of the members of Alkali Manufacturers Association of India that at the stage of preliminary finding there is no f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any country at less than its normal value, on such importation in India, the Government of India is entitled by notification to impose anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping in relation to the article. 23.While Section 9B of the Act contemplates certain circumstances wherein no such levy can be imposed, Section 9C of the Act provides an appeal to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order of determination or review regarding the existence, degree and effect of any subsidy or dumping in relation to import. Section 9C of the Act is as follows: Section 9C. Appeal. (1) An appeal against the order of determination or review thereof regarding the existence, degree and effect of any subsidy or dumping in relation to import of any article shall lie to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal constituted under section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) (hereafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal). (1A)An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be accompanied by a fee of fifteen thousand rupees. (1B) Every application made before the Appellate Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 3 of the Rules enables the Central Government to appoint Designated Authority, whose duties are mentioned in Rule 4 of the Rules, which is as follows: Rule 4. Duties of the designated authority.- It shall be the duty of the designated authority in accordance with these rules- (a) to investigate as to the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping in relation to import of any article; (b) to identify the article liable for anti-dumping duty; (c) to submit its findings, provisional or otherwise to Central Government as to- (i) normal value, export price and the margin of dumping in relation to the article under investigation; and (ii) the injury or threat of injury to an industry established in India or material retardation to the establishment of an industry in India consequent upon the import of such article from the specified countries; (d) to recommend to the Central Government- (i) the amount of anti-dumping duty equal to the margin of dumping or less, which if levied, would remove the injury to the domestic industry, after considering the principles laid down in the Annexure III to these rules; and (ii) the date of comme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igation, the Designated Authority gives a final finding and it is in the final finding, as it is seen under Rule 17 of the Rules, a determination is made in the form of recommendation by the Designated Authority and thereafter, the Central Government issues levy within a period of three months of the date of publication of final findings by the Designated Authority, as it is seen in Rule 18 of the Rules which is as follows: Rule 18. Levy of duty.- (1) The Central Government may, within three months of the date of publication of final findings by the designated authority under rule 17, impose by notification in the Official Gazette, upon importation into India of the article covered by the final finding, anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping as determined under rule 17: (2) In cases where the designated authority has selected percentage of the volume of the exports from a particular country, as referred to sub-rule (3) of rule 17, any anti-dumping duty applied to imports from exporters or producers not included in the examination shall not exceed - (i) the weighted average margin of dumping established with respect to the selected exporters or produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a preliminary finding given by the Designated Authority is recommendatory in nature and appeal would not be tenable under Section 9C of the Act against the said preliminary finding, with the operative portion as follows: 16. This leads to an another issue as to whether an appeal lies to C.E.S.T.A.T. against levy of provisional anti-dumping duty, and if yes, whether this Court should entertain the present petition when an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal is available to the petitioners. In support of this contention, Mr. Joshi relied on the decision of this Court in Surfaces Plus v. Union of India - 2004 (173) ELT 127 (Guj.) wherein, while considering an issue as to whether an appeal lies against preliminary finding, the Court held that against preliminary finding, which is of a recommendatory nature, an appeal would not be tenable under Section 9C of the Act. The preliminary finding which is of a recommendatory nature is required to be considered by the Central Government under Rule 13 for the purpose of deciding the question of imposing provisional anti-dumping duty and the Central Government is required to issue notification for imposing anti-dumping duty. Such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e fact that they are being saddled with the liability of provisional anti-dumping duty. 31. In any event, all the respective counsel have mainly focussed their attention on the merits of the case about the definition of the term domestic industry , which is the crux of the issue, and therefore we do not want to differ from the finding of the learned Judge regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petition against the preliminary finding published by the Designated Authority is maintainable, especially when the writ petitioner has chosen to raise the point of jurisdiction. The said point is answered accordingly. (xi)2002 (149) E.L.T. 45 (Raj.) [Rajasthan Textile Mills Association Vs. Dir. General of Anti-Dumping] wherein the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court held as follows: ... Rule 12. Preliminary findings.- (1) The designated authority shall proceed expeditiously with the conduct of the investigation and shall, in appropriate cases, record a preliminary finding regarding export price, normal value and margin of dumping, and in respect of imports from specified countries, it shall also record a further finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Authority is in the nature of recommendation to the Central Government. It is for the Central Government to accept or not to accept the finding. It is submitted that levy of provisional duty under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1995 is the legislative activity intended to protect the domestic PSF industries and any judicial interference with the process of such levy will disturb the time schedule provided under the Rules and may also cause irreparable damage to the domestic PSF industry. It is also submitted by Mr. Venugopal that since the levy of excise duty provisional or final is on the exporter, as such, the user industry has no locus to maintain the writ petition challenging the initiation notification or the preliminary finding. Mr. Venugopal has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.). The brief order of the Apex Court is extracted as follows: We see no reason whatsoever to entertain these special leave petitions. It is perfectly clear now that we have seen the provisions of the Act that the order of the Designation Authority is purely recommendatory. The appeal that lies is against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and further says in its order, that based on the confidential and non-confidential evidence produced before it, the matter requires to be examined. This opinion requires to be aframed by the designated authority based on the evidence made available and produced before it by the applicants. This Court normally in exercise of its judicial review would disturb the opinion of the designated authority or the Central Government. This Court only looks into whether the opinion formed by the designated authority is in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. This Court also will not interfere with the opinion formed by the designated authority or the Central Government unless that opinion is either wholly arbitrary or unreasonable or no reasonable person would come to such a conclusion or if it is in violation of statutory provisions. In my opinion, in the instant case, the designated authority rightly and correctly understanding the scope of Secs. 9A and 9B and also Rule 5(1) to 5(5) of the Rules, has initiated investigation proceedings on the application filed by the domestic industries. In my opinion, the designated authority has not committed any erro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IR 1961 SC 372, the Company applied to the High Court for issuing a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution quashing the notice issued under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act on the ground that the amendment to the said provision was not retrospective and, as such, the assessment for a particular year, has became barred. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. It was contended before the Supreme Court that the notice was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the condition precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction under Sec. 34 of the Act was not satisfied. The Court observed that the High Court has power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction more particularly in a case where such an action is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment. The Court observed, thus: When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief, it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in fit cases and the courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons. In the present case, we can find no reason for which relief should be ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28.In Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. S.D.Agarwal reported in AIR 1969 SC 707, the appointment of Inspector to investigate the affairs of the Company and to report thereon under Section 237(b) came up for consideration. Before appointment of inspector under Sec. 237(b) by the Central Government, certain pre-conditions were also required to be satisfied as provided under Section 235. On examining the provisions of Section 235 and 236, the Court found that the investigation required was of serious nature. The writ petition was opposed by the Government on the ground that the report of the Inspector being of recommendatory nature, was not binding. Further finding of the Inspector being finding of fact, no interference was called for by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the opinion formed by the Central Government under Section 237(b) of the Companies Act is not open to judicial review being conclusive. The Apex Court observed that an investigation should not be ordered except on satisfactory grounds as the appointment of inspector is likely to receive much less publicity as a result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings, it would not be proper to tamper with the investigation midway, except in three contingencies referred-to above. Under the Scheme of the Rules of 1995, the Designated Authority acquires jurisdiction to initiate investigation only on satisfaction that there exists evidence in the application with regard to dumping, material injury and causal link. At this stage i.e. under Rule 5, the Designated Authority is required to examine the accuracy and adequacy of evidence produced in the application. Thus, in a case where there is a challenge to the initiation of investigation on the ground of jurisdictional error, the petition under Article 226 of me Constitution of India is maintainable. However, a writ Court entertaining a petition challenging the initiation notification will not be holding a roving enquiry but will confine to the existence of evidence provided in the application i.e. filing of valid application by the domestic industry and satisfaction of the Designated Authority as to sufficiency of evidence in the application with regard to dumping, material injury and causal link. 31.As far as the challenge to preliminary finding is concerned, it being recommendato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or industrial user, can not be ruled out. In addition to the conflicting interest of the parties, the consequence may cause large injury to rest of the citizenry. It will be travesty of justice, if in such a matter of serious consequence, even limited judicial review is refused, on the ground of writ petition being premature or existence of alternate remedy or locus. There can be no harm, if the writ Court keeping in mind urgency of the matter spares some time in the larger public interest and grants limited judicial review. 6.Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that in the present case, after initiation of enquiry under Section 8B(1), the Director General (Safeguards), on 05.01.2018, have recorded certain preliminary findings and forwarded the same to the Government. The recommendations issued by the 2nd respondent have been submitted to the Standing Board of Safeguards chaired by the Commerce Secretary and at this juncture, there is no cause of action for the filing of the Writ Petition. Further, the learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the Government has no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port authority for impounding or revoking a passport when he apprehends that the passport holder may leave the country and as such prompt action is essential. These observations would justify the authority to impound the passport without notice but before any final order is passed the rule of audi alteram partem would apply and the holder of the passport will have to be beard. I am satisfied that the petitioner's claim that she has a right to be heard before a final order under Section 10(3)(c) is passed is made out. In this view the question as to whether Section 10(3) (c) is ultra vires or not does not arise. (ii)2000 (118) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.) [Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: We see no reason whatsoever to entertain these special leave petitions. It is perfectly clear now that we have seen the provisions of the Act that the order of the Designated Authority is purely recommendatory. The appeal that lies is against the determination and that determination has to be made by the Central Government. For this reason, we decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cause of action. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner is a Non-Resident Company and represented by its Power of Attorney holder, who resides at New Delhi. The second respondent office, who passed the impugned order is also situated at New Delhi. It is also stated that in the export questionnaire, the petitioner had given its address for communication at New Delhi. Moreover, the appellate authority is also in Delhi. Taking into consideration the principles enunciated in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) Alchemist Ltd and another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and (ii) Kussum Ingots Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) (cited Supra), this Court is of the view that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. Hence, it is not necessary for this Court to adjudicate the other contentions advanced by the petitioner. (vi)2015 (324) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.) [Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. G.M.Exports and others] wherein the Supreme Court held as follows: ... 23 (4).In a situation in which India is a signatory nation to an intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 8B(1), the 2nd respondent, by the impugned notice dated 05.01.2018, have recorded certain preliminary findings and forwarded the same to the Government. The recommendations issued by the 2nd respondent has been submitted to the Standing Board of Safeguards, chaired by the Commerce Secretary. Further the respondents contended that the preliminary findings are only recommendatory in nature and there is no cause of action, therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is premature in nature. In the judgment reported in 2012 (281) E.L.T. 321 (Mad.) [Nirma Limited Vs. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd.], the issue was that when an alternative remedy against the preliminary findings is available to the petitioner, whether such alternative remedy is a bar for filing of Writ Petition by the petitioner. That apart, the Writ Petition was filed after the duty was imposed by the Government. 11.Section 8B(1) deals with imposition of Safeguard Duty and it contemplates an enquiry into the matter. The 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 19.12.2017 for the purpose of enquiry under Section 8B(1), wherein he had called upon all the interested parties to make their views known within a peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority is purely recommendatory, the same cannot be interfered with by the Apex Court. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in 2015 (324) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.) [Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. G.M.Exports and others] is also applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15.Though there is no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the facts and circumstances of the present case are totally different, the same are not applicable. 16.The scope of interference, in matters, which have huge economic impact, is very narrow. As a matter of fact, actions instituted in courts such as the instant Writ Petition have portents of derailing decisions, which could have a cascading impact and inflict resultant damage, not only on the Domestic Industry in issue, but even on industries, which are vertically integrated to the Domestic Industry, as also on their employees and industrial labour, which perhaps at times courts cannot monetarily quantify. 17.By the impugned notice dated 05.01.2018, the 2nd respondent had made certain preliminary findings and forwarded the same to the Government. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
