Court upholds jurisdiction of Designated Authority in New Shipper Review, dismisses writ petitions

The court dismissed all writ petitions challenging the New Shipper Review, ruling that the Designated Authority had jurisdiction to initiate the review under Rule 22. The court clarified that Rule 22 does not specify a time limit for the review, distinguishing it from Rule 23. It held that Rule 23(3) and Rule 17 procedures do not apply to Rule 22. The court deemed the writ petitions not maintainable, directing the petitioner to seek recourse under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act for further remedy.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Designated Authority to initiate the New Shipper Review.
2. Time limits for completing the New Shipper Review.
3. Applicability of Rule 23(3) and Rule 17 to Rule 22.
4. Maintainability of the Writ Petitions.
5. Availability of alternate remedies for the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Designated Authority to Initiate the New Shipper Review:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Designated Authority to initiate the New Shipper Review under Rule 22 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on dumped articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (ADD Rules). The petitioner argued that Rule 22 does not confer the power to undertake a New Shipper Review as Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 only provides for a sunset review. The court, however, found that Rule 22 specifically allows for a review to determine individual margins of dumping for exporters or producers who have not exported the product to India during the period of investigation.

2. Time Limits for Completing the New Shipper Review:
The petitioner contended that the review should be completed within 12 months, extendable by 6 months, as per Rule 17 and Rule 23(3). The court clarified that Rule 22 and Rule 23 operate in different spheres. Rule 22 does not prescribe a specific time limit for the New Shipper Review, unlike Rule 23, which deals with mid-term and sunset reviews and prescribes a 12-month period for completion. The court concluded that imposing the time limits of Rule 23 on Rule 22 would amount to rewriting the rule, which is impermissible.

3. Applicability of Rule 23(3) and Rule 17 to Rule 22:
The petitioner argued that the procedures and time limits of Rule 23(3) read with Rule 17 should apply to Rule 22. The court rejected this argument, stating that Rule 22 and Rule 23 are distinct and have different purposes. Rule 22 deals with reviews for new exporters or producers who did not export during the initial investigation period, while Rule 23 deals with ongoing reviews of existing anti-dumping duties. Thus, the court held that the time limits and procedures of Rule 23(3) and Rule 17 cannot be superimposed on Rule 22.

4. Maintainability of the Writ Petitions:
The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court decisions in NITCO Tiles Ltd. and Sandisk International Limited, which held that writ petitions challenging the final findings of the Designated Authority should not be entertained when an alternate remedy under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act is available. The court concluded that the writ petitions were not maintainable and the petitioner should avail the alternate remedy.

5. Availability of Alternate Remedies for the Petitioner:
The court directed the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy available under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. The court dismissed the writ petitions, allowing the petitioner to challenge the notification dated 16.06.2017 before the appropriate forum.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all the writ petitions, holding that:
1. The New Shipper Review initiated by the notification dated 23.09.2015 and culminating in the final findings dated 10.04.2017 is not barred by time.
2. Rule 22 does not require the review to be completed within 12/18 months.
3. Rule 23(3) read with Rule 17 cannot be applied to Rule 22.
4. The writ petitions are not maintainable.
5. The petitioner should avail the alternate remedy under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act.

---