2016 (11) TMI 765 - HC - Customs

Imposition of ADD - Purified Terephthalic Acid - imported from China PR, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia & Taiwan - Held that - although the petitioner has a statutory remedy of an appeal against the Final Findings of the DA under Section 9C of the CTA before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), in view of the heavy pendency of such appeals it is unlikely that the CESTAT will be able to take up the appeal filed at an early date. His apprehension is that the appeal itself might be rendered infructuous - the above plea does not constitute a sufficient justification to permit the petitioner to bypass the statutory remedy of an appeal provided under the CTA. It would, however, be open to the petitioner to request the CESTAT, as and when an appeal is filed by it, to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and in any event not later than six months thereafter - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to Final Finding of Designated Authority and Notification imposing anti-dumping duty

Issue 1: Challenge to Final Finding and Notification
The writ petition challenges the Final Finding of the Designated Authority (DA) dated 9th June, 2016, regarding the anti-dumping investigation on 'Purified Terephthalic Acid' (PTA) from China PR, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia & Taiwan. The Notification No. 28/2016-Customs (ADD) issued by the Central Government imposing anti-dumping duty under Section 9A(1) and (5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with relevant Rules, is also contested.

Issue 2: Statutory Remedy of Appeal
The petitioner's counsel argues that although there is a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the heavy backlog of appeals might delay the resolution significantly. The concern is that the appeal could become irrelevant due to the delay.

Issue 3: Judicial Precedents
The Court notes that similar pleas by other aggrieved parties have been dismissed previously, emphasizing that the existence of a statutory remedy like the appeal to CESTAT is crucial. Citing a recent order, the Court highlights that the plea to bypass the statutory remedy is insufficient justification for allowing the petitioner to circumvent the appeal process.

Issue 4: Disposal of Appeal
While dismissing the petition, the Court suggests that the petitioner can request CESTAT to expedite the appeal process and ensure a resolution within six months of filing. This indicates that the Court recognizes the importance of timely resolution while upholding the statutory appeal mechanism.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Final Finding of the Designated Authority and the Notification imposing anti-dumping duty, emphasizing the significance of the statutory remedy of appeal before CESTAT and suggesting expedited disposal of the appeal once filed.