Tribunal remits matter to Central Govt for review. Provisional assessment ordered to protect appellant's interests.

The office memorandum dated 28-10-2022 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Central Government to reconsider the recommendation made by the designated authority within three months. The Tribunal directed provisional assessment of imports concerning the subject goods from the subject countries, ensuring the appellant's interests were protected pending the Central Government's decision. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, and the Miscellaneous Application was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty
2. Maintainability of Appeal under Section 9C of the Tariff Act
3. Nature of Central Government's Determination (Legislative vs. Quasi-Judicial)
4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice
5. Requirement of a Reasoned Order by the Central Government
6. Extension of Anti-Dumping Duty Pending Review

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The appellant, a domestic industry, sought imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Styrene Butadiene Rubber from the European Union, Korea RP, and Thailand based on the designated authority's recommendation dated 29-7-2022. The Central Government, however, decided not to impose the duty, communicated via an office memorandum dated 28-10-2022.

2. Maintainability of Appeal under Section 9C of the Tariff Act:
The Tribunal examined the maintainability of the appeal under Section 9C of the Tariff Act, referencing a prior decision in Apcotex Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, which confirmed that an appeal is maintainable against the Central Government's decision not to impose anti-dumping duty despite a positive recommendation from the designated authority.

3. Nature of Central Government's Determination (Legislative vs. Quasi-Judicial):
The Tribunal analyzed whether the Central Government's determination was legislative or quasi-judicial. It concluded that the determination is quasi-judicial, requiring adherence to principles of natural justice and the issuance of a reasoned order. This conclusion was based on the Supreme Court's judgments in K. Sabanayagam and other relevant cases, which distinguished between the legislative function of rule-making and the quasi-judicial function of making determinations in individual cases.

4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the Central Government did not provide reasons for its decision not to impose anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal emphasized that even if the determination was legislative, the principles of natural justice still required the Central Government to provide tentative reasons and an opportunity for the domestic industry to respond.

5. Requirement of a Reasoned Order by the Central Government:
The Tribunal reiterated that the Central Government must provide a reasoned order when deciding not to impose anti-dumping duty despite a positive recommendation from the designated authority. This requirement aligns with the Supreme Court's judgments in Cynamide India Ltd. and Godawat Pan Masala, which mandate recording reasons for such decisions.

6. Extension of Anti-Dumping Duty Pending Review:
The appellant requested the Tribunal to extend the anti-dumping duty for a further period of three years or direct the Central Government to do so. The Tribunal, however, decided it would not be appropriate to extend the duty itself and remitted the matter to the Central Government for reconsideration. The Tribunal also directed provisional assessment of imports to protect the appellant's interests, similar to interim orders passed by the Delhi High Court in related cases.

Conclusion:
The office memorandum dated 28-10-2022 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Central Government to reconsider the recommendation made by the designated authority within three months. The Tribunal directed provisional assessment of imports concerning the subject goods from the subject countries, ensuring the appellant's interests were protected pending the Central Government's decision. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, and the Miscellaneous Application was disposed of accordingly.

---