2002 (7) TMI 315 - SC - Customs

Anti-dumping - Restrictive trade practice - MRTP Commission - Import at predatory prices - Restrictive trade practice - Jurisdiction - Rate of Customs duty

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the MRTP Commission over predatory pricing and anti-dumping complaints.
2. Applicability of the MRTP Act to agreements and trade practices involving foreign entities.
3. The relationship between the MRTP Act and the Customs Tariff Act regarding anti-dumping provisions.
4. The validity of the MRTP Commission's interim injunctions against foreign exporters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the MRTP Commission over predatory pricing and anti-dumping complaints:
The appellants argued that the MRTP Commission lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, as it essentially pertained to anti-dumping, which falls under the Customs Tariff Act. The respondents contended that the MRTP Act and the Customs Tariff Act operate in different fields and that the MRTP Commission's jurisdiction over restrictive trade practices, including predatory pricing, was not ousted by anti-dumping provisions.

2. Applicability of the MRTP Act to agreements and trade practices involving foreign entities:
The MRTP Act's jurisdiction extends only within India, as indicated by Sections 1(2), 2(e), and 14. The Act does not have extra-territorial application, meaning it cannot regulate agreements or practices conducted entirely outside India. However, the "effects doctrine" allows the MRTP Commission to take action if the restrictive trade practice carried out outside India has effects within India.

3. The relationship between the MRTP Act and the Customs Tariff Act regarding anti-dumping provisions:
The Customs Tariff Act and the MRTP Act operate in distinct spheres. The Customs Tariff Act deals with the imposition of anti-dumping duties to protect domestic industries from injury due to dumped imports. The MRTP Act addresses restrictive trade practices, including predatory pricing, to ensure fair competition within India. The two statutes do not conflict, and the MRTP Commission retains its jurisdiction over restrictive trade practices despite the existence of anti-dumping provisions.

4. The validity of the MRTP Commission's interim injunctions against foreign exporters:
The MRTP Commission's interim injunctions against foreign exporters were challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction and the lack of evidence for predatory pricing. The Court held that the MRTP Commission does not have extra-territorial jurisdiction to regulate actions of foreign exporters outside India. The Commission can only act on restrictive trade practices within India. Furthermore, the injunctions were deemed unsustainable as they were based on insufficient evidence and contrary to Section 14 of the MRTP Act.

Conclusion:
1. Anti-dumping provisions do not per se oust the jurisdiction of the MRTP Commission.
2. The MRTP Commission can take action whenever a Restrictive Trade Practice is carried out in India in respect of imported goods or otherwise.
3. It is only in respect of the Indian leg of the restrictive trade practice that an order under Section 12A and/or Section 37 can be passed.
4. Under Section 33, only agreements involving parties carrying on business in India require registration. However, the "effects doctrine" allows the MRTP Commission to act on restrictive trade practices resulting from foreign agreements that affect India.
5. Section 33 and Section 35 apply primarily to Indian agreements, with extra-territorial jurisdiction extended through Explanation I to Section 35.
6. The impugned order against the Indonesian exporters was set aside as the MRTP Commission lacked jurisdiction and the order was based on insufficient evidence.

The appeals were disposed of in these terms, with parties bearing their own costs.

← Previous Next →