2005 (2) TMI 159 - SC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - Anti-dumping matter - Held that - Court normally does not interfere either with a Courts decision not to relegate a writ petitioner to an alternative remedy or with the grant of interim relief. It is unnecessary to cite any authority in support of this as the proposition cannot admit of any controversy. However, having regard to the singular lack of any acceptable reason in the impugned order we have no hesitation in interfering with this particular exercise of discretion by the High Court and set aside the same - impugned order must necessarily be set aside but that the writ petition itself should be dismissed with liberty granted to the parties to respondent No. 1 to approach the CESTAT under provisions of Section 9C and to agitate all points raised in the writ petition before such Tribunal. Inasmuch as the proceedings have been conducted before an inappropriate forum and keeping in view the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition should be condoned - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal from interim order passed by High Court challenging final finding of designated authority on New Shipper Review. Refusal by High Court to relegate respondent to alternative remedy under Customs Tariff Act. Grant of interim relief by High Court restraining parties from giving effect to certain notifications. Lack of reasons provided by High Court for granting interim relief. Interference by Supreme Court with High Court's exercise of discretion. Direction by Supreme Court to approach CESTAT for related matters. Dismissal of writ petition with liberty to approach CESTAT. Condonation of period spent in prosecuting writ petition. Disposal of civil appeals with no order as to costs.

Analysis:

The Supreme Court heard appeals from an interim order issued by the High Court of Gujarat, which was based on a writ petition challenging the final finding of the designated authority on a New Shipper Review. The Central Government had issued notifications rescinding provisional assessments on imports from certain entities. The High Court, despite objections, entertained the writ petition stating the issue raised was important and sensitive to the country. However, the Supreme Court criticized this reasoning, highlighting that every case of alleged dumping would impact the country and allowing writ petitions would undermine the appeal process under the Customs Tariff Act.

The High Court not only entertained the writ petition but also granted interim relief restraining parties from implementing certain notifications. The Supreme Court found the lack of reasons for granting interim relief problematic, emphasizing the importance of providing reasons for such decisions, especially when they may be challenged before a higher authority. The Supreme Court noted that orders on interlocutory proceedings do not determine the case's merits and should not hinder parties at the final stage.

While acknowledging the general principle of not interfering with a court's decision on alternative remedies or interim relief, the Supreme Court found the lack of acceptable reasons in the High Court's order sufficient to warrant interference. The Supreme Court directed parties to approach the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for related matters, where an appeal was already pending. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the writ petition, allowing parties to raise all points before the CESTAT.

In consideration of the inappropriate forum for the proceedings and the provisions of the Limitation Act, the Supreme Court granted condonation for the period spent in prosecuting the writ petition. The civil appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs, bringing an end to the legal proceedings in this matter.