Appeal to CESTAT Allowed Only on Final Orders, Not Recommendations; Central Govt Has Discretion on Anti-Dumping Duty.

The HC dismissed the writ appeal, affirming that an appeal to CESTAT under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, is permissible only against a final order, not a recommendation by the Designated Authority. The Central Government, under Section 9A, holds the discretion to impose Anti-Dumping Duty, independent of the Designated Authority's recommendation. The HC allowed the appellant to submit a representation to the Central Government, which must decide within two months. The Central Government is not bound by the Designated Authority's report and may reach a different conclusion, ensuring parties have the right to be heard.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to recommendation of Designated Authority under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis:
The writ appeal was filed against a judgment challenging the Designated Authority's recommendation under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The learned Single Judge had held that an appeal lies with the CESTAT under Section 9C of the Act. However, the High Court opined that an appeal under Section 9C lies only against the final order, not a mere recommendation. The final order imposing or not imposing Anti-Dumping Duty is made by the Central Government under Section 9A, and the Designated Authority's recommendation is not binding on the Central Government. The Designated Authority's recommendation does not create rights or liabilities, and the Central Government can disagree with it.

The hierarchy of laws in India was discussed, emphasizing that the Central Government has the authority to impose Anti-Dumping Duty under Section 9A of the Act. Any rule made under the Act must conform to Section 9A. The report of the Designated Authority amounts to a recommendation and does not create rights or liabilities. The High Court rejected the argument that Rule 4(1)(d) is ultra vires as it only provides for a recommendation and does not conflict with the Act or the Constitution.

Regarding the limitation period for passing orders, Rules 18(1) and 18(4) were examined. Rule 18(1) deals with imposing Anti-Dumping Duty within three months if found imposable, while Rule 18(4) addresses withdrawing provisional duty if no duty is imposable. However, none of these rules cover a situation where the Central Government disagrees with the Designated Authority's conclusion. The Act does not provide for any limitation, and Rules cannot circumscribe the powers granted by the Act.

The High Court disposed of the appeal, allowing the appellant to approach the Central Government with a representation alleging that Anti-Dumping Duty was imposable. The Central Government is required to decide on the representation within two months, not bound by the Designated Authority's report, and may form a different conclusion. Parties have the right to be heard during this process.

---