2019 (6) TMI 526 - HC - Customs

Non-compliance with the orders of High Court - Suspension of N/N. 19/2019-Customs (ADD) dated April 16, 2019 - issuance of necessary notification so as extend the anti dumping duty as mentioned in Notification No. 39/2018 Custom (ADD) - implementation of the orders passed by this Court. HELD THAT - The Court is of the view that nothing prevented the respondents from approaching this Court for seeking appropriate relief / clarification. Unfortunately, close perusal of Office Memorandum dated 6.5.2019 reproduced hereinabove rather indicates the authority's conduct in avoiding the compliance with the Court's order. The author of the Office Memorandum clearly reveals uncanny and enigmatic recalcitrant approach on the part of the authority in complying with the order of this Court when these orders being not subjected to any further challenge or sought to be reviewed. The resultant effect of the two orders i.e. 24.4.2019 and 26.4.2019 left no room for any other option to the authority but to pass appropriate order and extend the anti-dumping duty notification. We are at pain to observe that para-6 of the Office Memorandum clearly betrays an unlawful and illegal examining by authority examining the orders of this court. Nothing prevented the respondents from approaching this Court or Supreme Court for obtaining appropriate orders but in absence thereof the authority themselves cannot decide not to comply with the order. Against these backdrops, we are called upon to examine the prayers made in this application. If these prayers are not granted, it would amount to permit the respondents to render petition infructuous solely on account of their omission to file reply and without adjudication, which cannot be permitted in a society wedding to rule of law. The respondents cannot be permitted to arrogate any jurisdiction and power, which they did not have to thwart and impead the operation of Court's order. The respondent no. 1 through an officer not below the rank of Secretary of the concerned department shall file an affidavit explaining as to why appropriate action be not initiated for non-compliance with the orders of this Court. NOTICE returnable on 12.6.2019.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Implementation of previous court orders.
2. Validity of the anti-dumping duty on paracetamol.
3. Breach of principles of natural justice.
4. Compliance with court orders by government authorities.
5. Extension of anti-dumping duty notification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Implementation of Previous Court Orders:
The applicants sought the implementation of the court's orders dated April 24, 2019, and April 26, 2019. The court had previously directed the respondents to extend the anti-dumping duty on paracetamol. The applicants argued that the respondents had not complied with these orders, resulting in the filing of the present application.

2. Validity of the Anti-Dumping Duty on Paracetamol:
The original petition challenged the Final Finding No. 7/16/2018-DGAD dated January 29, 2019, which did not recommend the continuation of the anti-dumping duty on paracetamol. The court had issued notices for final disposal, expressing prima facie satisfaction regarding the breach of principles of natural justice. The anti-dumping duty, initially imposed on October 28, 2013, was extended through a notification dated August 20, 2018, until April 26, 2019.

3. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:
The court found a prima facie breach of principles of natural justice due to the final findings being rendered without appropriate material being afforded to the concerned parties. The court noted that columns in the disclosure statement were left blank, and objections raised by the applicants were not addressed.

4. Compliance with Court Orders by Government Authorities:
The court observed that the respondents had not complied with the orders dated April 24, 2019, and April 26, 2019, which directed the extension of the anti-dumping duty. The court emphasized that compliance with court orders is mandatory and that authorities cannot flout such orders with impunity. The court cited the case of The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah, emphasizing that once a direction is issued by a competent court, it must be obeyed and implemented without reservation.

5. Extension of Anti-Dumping Duty Notification:
The court directed the respondents to extend the anti-dumping duty on paracetamol as per the notification dated August 20, 2018, until June 24, 2019. The court noted that the notification dated April 16, 2019, rescinding the anti-dumping duty, was issued without informing the court. The court suspended the notification dated April 16, 2019, and directed the respondents to comply with the orders dated April 24, 2019, and April 26, 2019.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the respondents' failure to comply with the court's orders was unacceptable and directed the issuance of an extension notification for the anti-dumping duty on paracetamol. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to judicial orders to maintain the rule of law and prevent miscarriage of justice. The case was adjourned to June 12, 2019, for further proceedings.