2011 (2) TMI 1164 - HC - Customs

Anti dumping duty - Notification No. 15/31/2010-DA dated 26-11-2010 - consequential direction for reimbursement of excess anti-dumping duty - Held that - If it is proved that anti-dumping duty has been imposed in excess of margin of dumping, the importer is entitled to refund under Section 9AA - Mere fact that power under Rules may not be exercised properly cannot be a ground to set aside the Rules - Designated Authority may take an appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner in accordance with law

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the validity of Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 and seeking amendment of a specific notification for anti-dumping duty review.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a declaration that Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 were ultra vires the Constitution and requested an amendment to a notification for a mid-term review of anti-dumping duty on Korea RP. The petitioner argued that the selective review of imports from one country was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the power under Rule 23 for selective review lacked guidelines and was arbitrary.

The Court noted that anti-dumping duty provisions aim to protect domestic industries from unfair trade practices. The Central Government is authorized to impose anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping. The Rules outline the procedure for determining dumping and injury margins, appointing a Designated Authority, and reviewing the need for anti-dumping duty continuance. The Court emphasized that the Rules have established procedures and guidelines, and decisions are appealable under Section 9C. The Court found that the Rules serve the statutory mandate and are necessary for achieving their objectives.

Regarding the specific case of the mid-term review initiated for anti-dumping duty on 'phenol' from Korea RP, the Court held that the review's scope could include other countries as well. The Court highlighted that the petitioner had applied for inclusion in the review process, and there was no reason to assume that the application would not be considered. The Court concluded that there was no legal basis to entertain the petition at that stage, directing the Designated Authority to decide on the petitioner's application in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of following the established procedures and guidelines in anti-dumping duty matters. The judgment upheld the validity of the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 and highlighted the need for fair application of anti-dumping duty regulations to safeguard domestic industries while ensuring compliance with legal principles and procedures.