2011 (2) TMI 1503 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the vires of Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 and related Notifications; Validity of rules under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 and related notifications on the grounds of limited scope of hearing and violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner's appeal was pending before the CESTAT, and the Court refrained from delving into the merits of the case due to the pending appeal. The Court noted that the scope of hearing under Rule 6(5) was not limited to specific matters as contended by the petitioner.

Legal Provisions and Interpretation:
Section 9A of the Act empowers the Central Government to impose Anti-Dumping Duty to prevent unfair trade practices like dumping. The Act aims to maintain a level playing field by preventing dumping that harms domestic industries. The rules provide for investigation into dumping, injury, and causality. The Designated Authority initiates investigations, issues public notices, and gives affected parties an opportunity to be heard. The rules also outline principles for determining normal value, export price, margin of dumping, and injury.

Constitutional Validity and Fundamental Rights:
The Court emphasized that the provision for Anti-Dumping Duty is not violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights but rather serves to safeguard the interests of the domestic industry. The Court held that the rules, which are within the scope of the main provision, are not unconstitutional. The investigation focuses on issues related to dumping, injury, and causality to impose anti-dumping duty equal to the margin of dumping, in line with the objectives of Section 9A of the Act.

Final Decision:
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the vires of Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 and related notifications. The Court found no grounds to declare the rules ultra vires the Constitution, as the rules were deemed to be within the scope of the main provision and not violative of fundamental rights. The Court instructed the petitioner to pursue the pending appeal before the CESTAT for further consideration.