2014 (6) TMI 678 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction of court - Determination under Section 8B of the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997 - Held that - The rules as well as the provisions of law, i.e., substantive Section 8B envision consideration of the report and recommendations of the designated authority by the Central Government which then would proceed to decide what should be the further course of action i.e. the rate of duty and the period for which it is to be imposed. Such final decision of the Central Government would then be made operative through the Notification to be published in the official gazette or made known generally to all concerned - no interference would be called for in respect of such matters, as they are mere recommendations. This Court is of the opinion that it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this stage. This is, of course, not to preclude the petitioner from challenging the ultimate decision notified by the Central Government under Rule 12 in accordance with law - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notification under Section 8B of the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997; Unreasonableness and jurisdiction of designated authority; Interpretation of Rules 11 and 12; Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a notification dated 11.03.2014, which was considered a determination under Section 8B of the Customs Tariff Rules. The petitioner argued that the findings of the designated authority were unreasonable and contrary to the order itself. It was contended that the authority lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order. Additionally, it was highlighted that Rule 11 of the Rules required a final determination that could not be reconsidered by the Central Government under Rule 12.

Rule 11 of the Customs Tariff Rules outlines the procedure for final findings by the Director General regarding increased imports causing serious injury to the domestic industry. The Director General is required to assess the causal link between imports and injury, recommend duty amounts to prevent harm, and suggest the duration of the levy. The final findings must contain detailed information on facts, law, and reasons leading to the conclusion, followed by a public notice and submission to the Central Government.

The legal framework envisions the Central Government considering the designated authority's report and recommendations to decide on the duty rate and duration. The Supreme Court precedent in United Phosphorous Ltd. v. Director General (Safeguards) emphasized that such recommendations are not subject to interference. Therefore, the High Court determined that it was inappropriate to exercise judicial review under Article 226 at that stage, allowing the petitioner to challenge the final decision notified by the Central Government under Rule 12 through proper legal channels.

In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of without interference, emphasizing the importance of following the legal process for challenging decisions under the Customs Tariff Rules and reserving the right to challenge the ultimate decision through lawful means.