1996 (10) TMI 171 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeals.
2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to grant a stay.
3. Imposition of anti-dumping duty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeals:
The primary issue was whether the appeals against the order of the Designated Authority were maintainable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended. The appellants argued that since the impugned order was passed after the incorporation of Section 9C, which provides for an appeal, they had the right to appeal.

The court noted that the Act initially did not contain provisions for anti-dumping duty, which were later incorporated by Act 52 of 1982. However, this amendment did not provide for an appeal against the Designated Authority's findings. The subsequent Ordinance 14 of 1994 and Act No. 6 of 1995, effective from 1-1-1995, introduced Section 9C, which explicitly allowed for such appeals.

The court cited several precedents, including Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry and Others and Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad, to establish that the right of appeal is substantive and can be conferred by subsequent legislation. The court concluded that since Section 9C was in effect at the time of the impugned order, the appeals were maintainable.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Grant a Stay:
The second issue was whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to grant a stay in the absence of explicit statutory provisions. The Designated Authority contended that the Tribunal lacked such power. However, the appellants argued that the Tribunal had inherent powers to pass appropriate orders to ensure justice.

After discussions, the appellants agreed not to press for a stay if the appeals could be heard expeditiously. The Tribunal, recognizing the international ramifications and the novelty of the duty involved, agreed to an early hearing of the appeals, scheduling them for 16-1-1997 and 17-1-1997.

3. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The case involved the imposition of anti-dumping duty on Acrylonitrile-Butadiene Rubber (NBR) imported from Japan. The Designated Authority had found that the Japanese exporters were dumping NBR in India at prices below the normal value, causing material injury to the Indian industry. Consequently, it recommended a definitive anti-dumping duty of Rs. 19,306/- PMT to mitigate this injury.

The appellants challenged the findings and the imposition of the duty. However, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue in the present order, focusing instead on the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the appeals and the jurisdiction to grant a stay.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the appeals were maintainable under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as amended. It also acknowledged its inherent power to pass orders to ensure justice but did not grant a stay, opting instead for an expedited hearing of the appeals. The stay applications were disposed of accordingly.