1999 (11) TMI 190 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal.
2. Definition and qualification of "domestic industry."
3. Jurisdiction and powers of the Designated Authority and the Tribunal.
4. Interpretation of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The primary issue raised by the respondents was the maintainability of the appeal. The respondents argued that the Designated Authority's order rejecting the application on the ground of non-maintainability does not fall within the ambit of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, which confers appellate power on the Tribunal. They contended that the order did not determine the existence, degree, and effect of any subsidy or dumping.

The appellant countered that the rejection of their application effectively decided the non-existence of dumping, thus making it appealable under Section 9C. However, the Tribunal found that the Designated Authority's refusal to entertain the application on the ground of non-maintainability did not constitute a determination of dumping or subsidy, either affirmatively or negatively. Consequently, such an order could not be appealed under Section 9C.

2. Definition and Qualification of "Domestic Industry":
The Designated Authority had concluded that the appellant did not qualify as part of the "domestic industry" as defined under Rule 2(b) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment, and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. This definition excludes producers related to exporters or importers of the alleged dumped articles and those who import such articles themselves.

As a result, the Designated Authority did not proceed with the investigation to determine the normal value, export value, and margin of dumping, nor the injury or threat of injury to the Indian industry. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the Designated Authority's decision not to initiate an investigation was based on the appellant's failure to meet the definition of "domestic industry."

3. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Designated Authority and the Tribunal:
The Tribunal examined the powers conferred upon it by Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. It noted that its appellate jurisdiction is limited to reviewing determinations or reviews regarding the existence, degree, and effect of any subsidy or dumping. The Tribunal emphasized that it could not assume or exercise appellate power unless specifically granted by the statute.

The Tribunal also rejected the appellant's argument that the Designated Authority had wrongly refused to exercise its jurisdiction. It held that the Tribunal's powers are circumscribed by Section 9C and cannot be extended to include orders rejecting applications on the ground of non-maintainability.

4. Interpretation of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act:
Section 9C(1) of the Customs Tariff Act provides for an appeal against the order of determination or review regarding the existence, degree, and effect of any subsidy or dumping. The Tribunal interpreted this provision to mean that only orders determining these issues, either affirmatively or negatively, are appealable.

The Tribunal distinguished between an order determining the existence of dumping and an order rejecting an application on the ground of non-maintainability. It held that the latter does not fall within the scope of Section 9C, as it does not involve a determination of dumping or subsidy.

The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in O.P. Jain v. Gian Chand, which dealt with the appealability of an order dismissing an election petition. However, it found that this decision did not apply to the present case, as the Designated Authority had not initiated an investigation under the Act and Rules.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and held that the appeal was not maintainable. It dismissed the appeal without examining the substantive issues raised by the appellant, emphasizing that the Designated Authority's order rejecting the application on the ground of non-maintainability did not fall within the purview of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act.