2017 (2) TMI 924 - SC - Customs

Locus of the respondent to file the writ petition before the Delhi High Court - Levy of Anti-dumping Duty on USB Flash Drives - validity of investigation and findings of the Designated Authority (DA) - Sub section (5) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - the decision in the case Sandisk International Ltd. Versus The Designated Authority & Ors. 2015 (9) TMI 402 - DELHI HIGH COURT , contested upon - Held that - the respondent - M/s Sandisk International Ltd., subject to its locus, and all other aggrieved parties should be left with the option of challenging the final notification dated 22nd May, 2015 before the appellate authority by means of an appeal u/s 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. If such an appeal is filed we would request the Appellate Tribunal to consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against judgment of Delhi High Court interfering with final findings of Designated Authority under Customs Tariff Rules; Locus standi of respondent to file writ petition; Legality and propriety of final notification under Rule 18 of the Rules; Appellate authority's jurisdiction to consider challenges.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court allowed applications for intervention and granted leave in the case. The appeals challenged the Delhi High Court's interference with the final findings of the Designated Authority under the Customs Tariff Rules. The Court noted seriously disputed questions regarding the locus standi of the respondent to file the writ petition and whether the information was furnished by the Designated Authority. While acknowledging the possibility of challenging final findings under Article 226, the Court held that the High Court erred in setting aside the findings. It suggested awaiting the final notification under Rule 18 and challenging it before the appellate forum under the Customs Tariff Act. The Court emphasized that the appellate authority would be better equipped to examine such challenges.

Moreover, the Court mentioned a new development during the appeals - the publication of the final notification under Rule 18, which had been operational with duty collection. Despite the notification being issued without the Court's leave, the Court declined to address its legality or propriety as the respondent did not seek interference or restraint on its operation. The Court emphasized that the respondent and other aggrieved parties should have the option to challenge the notification before the appellate authority under the Customs Tariff Act. The Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeals, clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the case's merits for the Appellate Tribunal to consider comprehensively.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's judgment primarily focused on the challenges against the Delhi High Court's interference with the Designated Authority's final findings under the Customs Tariff Rules. It highlighted the importance of following the proper appellate procedures and refraining from premature challenges. The Court emphasized the role of the appellate authority in addressing challenges effectively and efficiently, ensuring a fair and comprehensive examination of the issues at hand.