Court dismisses challenge to anti-dumping duty notification; petitioners directed to pursue appellate remedy

The Court dismissed the petition challenging an order upholding an anti-dumping duty notification on Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber from Korea and Germany, citing the availability of an alternate appellate remedy under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Court emphasized the incorporation of appeal provisions from the Customs Act, 1962, for duties under Section 9A, allowing appeals to the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme Court. The petition was deemed not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the Petitioners were directed to pursue the appellate remedy provided by law, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by CESTAT upholding anti-dumping duty notification. Preliminary objection on maintainability of petition due to appeal provision under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis:
The petition was filed to challenge an order by CESTAT upholding an anti-dumping duty notification on Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber from Korea and Germany. The appeal was made under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. A preliminary objection was raised on the maintainability of the petition, arguing that an appeal could be filed under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Section 9A(1) of the Act allows the Central Government to impose anti-dumping duty, and Section 9C(1) provides for appeals to the Tribunal. Section 9A(8) makes the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 applicable to duties under Section 9A. Appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court are provided under Sections 130 and 130E respectively for orders passed by the Tribunal.

The Court rejected the argument that the appeal provision should be read in conjunction with other sections like 129A. It emphasized the plain and literal meaning of Section 9A(8) which incorporates appeal provisions from the Customs Act, 1962. The Court highlighted that appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court are available for determinations made by the Tribunal. The provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, including appeals, are deemed applicable to duties under Section 9A to ensure a coherent appellate process. The Court dismissed the contention that appeals could only be made after a final notification, stating that such a restriction was not legislated by Parliament.

Ultimately, the Court held that the petition was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the availability of an alternate appellate remedy as per the law. The petition was dismissed, allowing the Petitioners to pursue the appellate remedy. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

---