2017 (4) TMI 881 - SC - Customs

Appellate Jurisdiction - maintainability of appeal - levy of anti-dumping duty (ADD) upon the import of graphite electrodes - Held that - There was a power of suo motu revision with the Board as well as a revisional jurisdiction to be exercised on an application by an aggrieved person. The Central Government under Section 131 (originally enacted) and under Section 129DD (Substituted by Act 21 of 1984) was also vested with a revisional jurisdiction - under the CA, 1962, (as amended), against an order of the appellate tribunal on a question not relating to duty or to classification of goods, an appeal lies to the High Court on a substantial question of law. A reference, again, on a question of law, may also be made to the High Court in respect of similar orders of the appellate tribunal (not relating to determination of duty or classification of goods) passed on or before 1.7.2003. The report of the Designated Authority neither suffers from any excessive imposition of confidentiality nor from the alleged non-consideration of any of the grounds urged on behalf of the appellant. The tribunal further held that the Designated Authority had followed an acceptable method of determining the normal value of electrodes within China by comparing individual work undertaken by an exporter vis- -vis the export price imposed and that there was no infirmity in the matter of such determination. The findings recorded by the learned appellate tribunal on the basis of which the appeal of the present appellant has been dismissed are findings of fact arrived at on due consideration of all relevant materials on record - appeal dismissed by refusing admission - decided against appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and interpretation of appellate power under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Historical evolution of the appellate and reference jurisdiction under the Customs Act.
3. Applicability of Civil Procedure Code provisions to appeals under Section 130E.
4. Criteria for admitting an appeal under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act.
5. Evaluation of the specific case involving anti-dumping duty on graphite electrodes imported from China.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope and Interpretation of Appellate Power under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Court examined the broad and expansive appellate jurisdiction under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, determining the precise contours necessary for the admissibility of appeals. The appellate power under Section 130E(b) is construed similarly to the appellate power under Section 130E(a) against the orders of the High Court, thereby making the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) relating to appeals to the Supreme Court applicable to appeals under Section 130E.

2. Historical Evolution of the Appellate and Reference Jurisdiction under the Customs Act:
The judgment traced the history of the customs duty regime, highlighting the changes from executive appellate remedies to the establishment of specialized quasi-judicial bodies like CEGAT (now CESTAT). The amendments over the years, including the Finance Act of 1980, 1999, and 2003, were discussed, showing the evolution of appellate and reference jurisdictions. The invalidation of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, by the Supreme Court reinstated the provisions of the Customs Act as they were before the enactment of the National Tax Tribunal.

3. Applicability of Civil Procedure Code Provisions to Appeals under Section 130E:
Section 130F of the Customs Act makes the provisions of the CPC relating to appeals to the Supreme Court applicable to appeals under Section 130E. The Court emphasized that the appellate power under Section 130E(b) should be consistent with the role and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as envisaged under the Constitution, limiting it to substantial questions of law, even if such limitation is not explicitly mentioned in the statute.

4. Criteria for Admitting an Appeal under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act:
The Court laid down specific conditions for admitting an appeal under Section 130E(b):
- The question raised must have a direct and/or proximate nexus to the determination of the applicable rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes.
- The question must involve a substantial question of law that has not been answered or where there is a conflict of decisions.
- If the tribunal's conclusion is a possible one based on material and relevant facts, it should be allowed to rest even if the Supreme Court might take a different view.
- There must be a gross violation of procedure or principles of natural justice occasioning a failure of justice.

5. Evaluation of the Specific Case Involving Anti-Dumping Duty on Graphite Electrodes Imported from China:
The appellant, a public sector undertaking, challenged the imposition of anti-dumping duty on graphite electrodes imported from China. The Designated Authority's report, which led to the imposition of the duty, was scrutinized by the appellate tribunal (CESTAT). The tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's findings, which were based on a thorough assessment of the normal value of graphite electrodes within China and the export price, concluding that the domestic industry suffered material injury due to dumping.

The Court found that the tribunal's findings were based on relevant materials and were factual determinations. As per the precedent set in Swastic Woollen (P) Ltd., the Supreme Court would not interfere with such factual findings unless there was a gross violation of procedure or principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed by refusing admission, as the findings of the appellate tribunal were factual and did not warrant re-examination under the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as per Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act.

← Previous Next →