2013 (6) TMI 453 - HC - Customs

Imposing anti dumping duty - writ petition - territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - principles of natural justice - Held that - it is clear that Anti-Dumping duty is payable when the concerned goods are cleared through the Chennai Port i.e., assessment of duties upon clearnace of the subject goods exported by the petitioner takes place at Chennai. So, the issue is whether the assessment and payment of Anti-Dumping duty on the goods that is going to take place constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. It certainly does not constitute cause of action. An anticipatory event will not give cause of action. A cause of action must exist and it is a condition precedent before initiation. By no means, the above factor constitute material, essential or integral part of cause of action. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner is a Non-Resident Company and represented by its Power of Attorney holder, who resides at New Delhi. The second respondent office, who passed the impugned order is also situated at New Delhi. It is also stated that in the export questionnaire, the petitioner had given its address for communication at New Delhi. Moreover, the appellate authority is also in Delhi. Taking into consideration the principles enunciated in the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) Alchemist Ltd and Another v. State Bank of Sikkim and Others 2007 (3) TMI 382 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and (ii) Kusum Ingots Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and Another 2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , this Court is of the view that no cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petitions. Therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable. - writ petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Consideration of all materials and correct decision-making by the second respondent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court:
The first issue is whether any cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court to entertain the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court examined the concept of "cause of action," noting that it is not defined in the Constitution or the Civil Procedure Code but has been judicially interpreted to mean every fact necessary for the plaintiff to prove to support their right to judgment. The court cited the Supreme Court's rulings in Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim, which clarified that cause of action must constitute a material, essential, or integral part of the case.

In the present case, the petitioner argued that the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Madras High Court because the Anti-Dumping duty would be assessed and paid upon clearance of the goods at Chennai Port. However, the court determined that an anticipatory event does not constitute a cause of action. The court noted that the petitioner is a Non-Resident Company represented by a Power of Attorney holder residing in New Delhi, and the second respondent's office and the appellate authority are also located in New Delhi. Therefore, the court concluded that no cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction, making the writ petitions not maintainable.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The second issue was whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the second respondent did not consider their specific plea that the three grades of subject goods should not be part of the Anti-Dumping investigation. The petitioner argued that the second respondent failed to provide adequate reasons for their conclusions and did not consider the evidence submitted, including letters from end-users. The petitioner claimed that this oversight violated the principles of natural justice.

3. Consideration of All Materials and Correct Decision-Making:
The third issue was whether the second respondent considered all the materials on record and correctly decided the matter in accordance with the law. The petitioner argued that the second respondent did not properly evaluate whether the fourth respondent (Domestic Company) was manufacturing like articles. They contended that the grades in question were not identical to those produced by the fourth respondent, and therefore, the Anti-Dumping duty should not have been imposed. The petitioner also claimed that the second respondent did not provide sufficient reasoning for their decision, indicating a lack of proper application of mind.

Conclusion:
The court, after considering the principles enunciated in the Supreme Court judgments, concluded that no cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate court for redressal of its grievances. The court did not find it necessary to adjudicate the other contentions advanced by the petitioner due to the lack of jurisdiction. The writ petitions were dismissed, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

← Previous Next →