https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161053 A safeguard duty committee constituted by administrative arrangement was not invalid merely because all members were not Secretaries of the concerned departments, since no statute prescribed a fixed composition and senior officers from the relevant Ministries participated without objection. The Court also held that review under the safeguard duty rules was permissible because Rule 18 expressly provided for review, and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards did not bar that domestic mechanism. No further quasi-judicial hearing was required at the Standing Board stage, as the affected party had already been heard during the inquiry and the Board only considered the recommendations, public interest, and market conditions. The safeguard duty challenge therefore failed. en-us Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Dec 2013 10:38:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161053 A safeguard duty committee constituted by administrative arrangement was not invalid merely because all members were not Secretaries of the concerned departments, since no statute prescribed a fixed composition and senior officers from the relevant Ministries participated without objection. The Court also held that review under the safeguard duty rules was permissible because Rule 18 expressly provided for review, and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards did not bar that domestic mechanism. No further quasi-judicial hearing was required at the Standing Board stage, as the affected party had already been heard during the inquiry and the Board only considered the recommendations, public interest, and market conditions. The safeguard duty challenge therefore failed. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 05 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161053