2023 (1) TMI 1430 - AT - Customs

Central Government's decision rejecting anti-dumping duty recommendation set aside for lacking reasons and violating natural justice

M/s JK Paper Ltd. Versus Union of India, Designated Authority, Directorate General of Trade Remedies, Embassy of Indonesia, Embassy of Singapore, PT Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Tbk, P.T. Pindo-Deli Pulp and Paper Mills, PT. Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk, PT Riau Andalan Kertas, PT Anugerah Kertas Utama, PT Asia Pacific Rayon, APRIL International Enterprise Pte. Ltd., PT Sarana Jaya Andalan, Indonesia, AIE Fiber Resource and Trading (India) Private Limited, West Coast Paper Mills Ltd., Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd.

M/s JK Paper Ltd. Versus Union of India, Designated Authority, Directorate General of Trade Remedies, Embassy of Indonesia, Embassy of Singapore, PT Indah ... Issues Involved:1. Whether the Central Government's decision not to impose anti-dumping duty, despite the designated authority's recommendation, violated principles of natural justice.2. Whether the Central Government's decision is quasi-judicial or legislative in nature.3. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act.4. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Customs Tariff Act and the 1995 Anti-Dumping Rules.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The appellant contended that the Central Government's decision communicated through the office memorandum, which declined to impose anti-dumping duty despite the designated authority's recommendation, violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the decision lacked reasons and did not provide the domestic industry an opportunity to present their case, which is required under the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that even if the decision-making process is considered legislative, the principles of natural justice must be adhered to, as the decision affects the rights of the domestic industry.2. Nature of the Central Government's Decision:The Tribunal examined whether the Central Government's decision was legislative or quasi-judicial. It concluded that the decision is quasi-judicial in nature. The Tribunal referred to past judgments, stating that while the Central Government frames rules as a legislative function, the act of making determinations under rule 18 of the 1995 Anti-Dumping Rules is quasi-judicial. This requires adherence to natural justice principles and a reasoned order, as the decision involves applying a legislative framework to specific cases.3. Maintainability of the Appeal:The Tribunal addressed the maintainability of the appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. It referenced its earlier decision in M/s. Apcotex Industries Limited, where it was held that an appeal is maintainable against the Central Government's decision not to impose anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal reiterated that the decision is appealable as it involves determining individual rights and is not purely legislative.4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:The Tribunal reviewed the procedural requirements under the Customs Tariff Act and the 1995 Anti-Dumping Rules. It noted that the designated authority had conducted a thorough investigation, including public notices, oral hearings, and disclosure of essential facts. The designated authority recommended the continuation of anti-dumping duty based on evidence of continued dumping and injury to the domestic industry. However, the Central Government's decision to not impose the duty lacked a reasoned basis and did not follow the procedural safeguards, necessitating a remand for reconsideration.Conclusion:The Tribunal set aside the office memorandum dated 03.03.2022 and remitted the matter to the Central Government for reconsideration of the designated authority's recommendation. It directed that provisional assessments of imports be made until a fresh decision is taken, ensuring no equities are created in favor of the domestic industry or affecting the final decision. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, and the Central Government was instructed to comply with the order and ensure effective steps are taken for due compliance.