Anti-dumping duty enquiry cannot be short-circuited by coercive statements or pre-adjudication payment demands.

Investigating officers may conduct an enquiry into the origin of imported goods and, if warranted, place their report for action under customs law, but they cannot bypass the adjudicatory process by coercing the importer to give a statement in their dictated form or by insisting on payment of anti-dumping duty before completion of the enquiry. The importer was also expected to cooperate so the investigation could proceed expeditiously. The enquiry was permitted to continue, but officers were restrained from using force or demanding pre-adjudication payment of duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the investigating officers could compel the importer to give a statement to their dictates or insist upon payment of anti-dumping duty before completion of the enquiry.

Analysis: The writ petition arose from an investigation into the origin of imported compact fluorescent lamps and the possible applicability of anti-dumping duty. The Court held that while the investigating officers were entitled to conduct an enquiry and, if warranted, forward their report for action under the Customs law, they could not bypass the enquiry process by coercing the importer into making a statement in the manner dictated by them or by insisting on payment of anti-dumping duty before adjudication was completed. At the same time, the importer was expected to cooperate so that the enquiry could be completed expeditiously.

Conclusion: The officers were restrained from using force or compelling a dictated statement or pre-adjudication payment of anti-dumping duty, while the enquiry itself was permitted to proceed.

---