2019 (2) TMI 975 - HC - Customs

High Court rebukes CESTAT for arbitrary rejections, emphasizes transparency in Customs Act appeals

The High Court criticized CESTAT for inconsistently rejecting appeals under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, without providing reasons. ... Anti-Dumping Duty - Cold Rolled Coils by Chinese and other manufacturers in India - marginal injury - Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Held that:- The CESTAT’s approach, we regret to note, is wholly inconsistent with this Court’s order and directions in Manali Petrochemicals Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. [2017 (1) TMI 1018 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. The Court had on that occasion, in similar circumstances, noted the nature of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and inter alia held The CESTAT has in essence, treated an appellate remedy (otherwise a compulsive jurisdiction) to be alternative and discretionary, robbing it of substantial content. The failure of the CESTAT to adjudicate the petitioners’ appeal, in the opinion of this Court, is inexplicable. Its impugned order, is completely at variance with the directions in Manali Petrochemicals. The Court is also cognizant of the fact that the proceedings before the Supreme Court have not in any manner restrained CESTAT from performing its statutory duty of adjudicating on the appeals pending before it. The CESTAT’s approach of ‘washing its hands’ of the duty cast upon is, therefore, deprecated in the strongest terms. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals preferred by the petitioners before it are restored to the file of CESTAT - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Grievance regarding rejection of appeals by CESTAT under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.2. Inconsistency of CESTAT's approach with previous court orders.3. Failure of CESTAT to provide reasons for rejecting appeals.4. CESTAT's mistaken assumption about pending writ petitions providing adequate redress.5. CESTAT treating appellate remedy as discretionary and alternative.Analysis:1. The petitions raised concerns about CESTAT rejecting appeals under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appeals questioned the notification and findings related to dumping of Cold Rolled Coils by Chinese manufacturers in India and the anti-dumping duty imposed. CESTAT cited a previous rejection of a similar appeal and advised the petitioners to await the final verdict from the Supreme Court before reapplying.2. The High Court noted that CESTAT's approach was inconsistent with a previous order in Manali Petrochemicals case. The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons for decisions, citing the need for transparency, accountability, and fairness in judicial proceedings. The court highlighted that the appellate remedy was intended to provide redress and should not be treated as discretionary or alternative.3. The court criticized CESTAT for failing to provide reasons for rejecting the appeals, emphasizing the significance of recording reasons in judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. The court stressed that reasons are essential for ensuring justice, transparency, and accountability in the decision-making process.4. The court pointed out CESTAT's mistaken assumption that pending writ petitions could offer adequate redress to the petitioners. The court clarified that the availability of an appellate remedy allows parties to seek correction on facts and law, while judicial review operates within a limited scope. The court directed CESTAT to expedite the hearing and issue final orders within three months.5. The High Court set aside CESTAT's impugned order and restored the appeals to be heard in accordance with the law. The court criticized CESTAT's approach of neglecting its statutory duty and emphasized the need for CESTAT to proceed with adjudicating the pending appeals without delay. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.