2011 (3) TMI 652 - HC - Customs

Notification No. 125/2010 - Anti-dumping duty @ 266% - Designated Authority (DA for short) in its preliminary findings published on 7th September 2009 held that the domestic industry had suffered material injury by such imports and recommended imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty - in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority (2011 -TMI - 201474 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - Held that instead of driving the Petitioner to avail the statutory alternate remedy provided under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 this Court must quash and set aside the impugned final findings and the consequential Notification which are ex facie unsustainable and are non est in the eye of law - The Writ Petition is disposed off

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to final findings and customs notification imposing anti-dumping duty; Maintainability of Writ Petition against statutory remedy under Customs Tariff Act; Violation of principles of Natural Justice in passing final findings.

Analysis:
The Petitioner, a company incorporated in China, challenged final findings and a customs notification imposing a 266% anti-dumping duty on goods exported to India. The Petitioner manufactures Synchronous Digital Hierarchy (SDH) equipment falling under Chapter 85 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Anti-dumping proceedings were initiated in 2009, with provisional duties imposed and subsequently challenged in court. The Designated Authority (DA) recommended definitive anti-dumping duty in 2010, leading to the present challenge.

The Respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition, citing the statutory alternate remedy under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. Other parties had filed Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court, seeking to withdraw them to pursue the statutory appeal process. The Petitioner argued that the final findings violated principles of Natural Justice, as different DAs were involved in the process, citing a relevant judgment.

In light of the arguments, the Court acknowledged the soundness of the Petitioner's position but noted that similar issues were raised in another case before the Apex Court. Consequently, the Court directed the Petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. The Petitioner agreed to file an appeal within a specified timeline, and the Court directed the appellate authority to condone any delay and decide the appeal expeditiously. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.