2022 (6) TMI 680 - HC - Customs

Anti-dumping duty - Sunset Review - N/N. 7/22/2021 (Case No. AD-(SSR) 18/2021) dated11th March 2022 - HELD THAT - Directions are issued to Respondent No.1 to take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible and not later than ten days from today. Writ petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to impugned notification no. 20/2022-Customs (ADD) dated 7th June, 2022.
2. Sunset Review Final Findings Notification F. No. 7/22/2021 recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty for a further period of five years.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ to quash the notification no. 20/2022-Customs (ADD) dated 7th June, 2022. The Central Government Standing Counsel clarified that the notification had not been published in the e-Gazette, rendering it inconsequential in the eyes of the law. Consequently, the petitioner did not press for this prayer, and it was not pursued further.

2. The Sunset Review investigation, initiated by Respondent No.2, had been completed, and findings were issued on 11th March 2022. The petitioner argued that the imposition of anti-dumping duty granted certain rights, and any withdrawal without due process would violate those rights. As per Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the duty ceases after five years unless extended by the Designated Authority. It was contended that a decision by Respondent No.1 was necessary promptly following the findings by Respondent No.2. The court, after hearing both parties, directed Respondent No.1 to make a decision within ten days, emphasizing that the decision must adhere to legal procedures. The court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the case's merits, disposing of the writ petition with these directives.

3. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process in matters concerning the imposition or withdrawal of anti-dumping duties. It underscored the need for timely decisions by the relevant authorities to uphold the rights of the concerned parties. The court's intervention aimed to ensure that legal procedures were followed, without delving into the substantive merits of the case. The disposal of the writ petition with clear directives exemplified the court's commitment to upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of the parties involved in such matters.