https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752234 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752234 Legality of Not Extending Anti-dumping duty - Imports of the Textured Toughened (Tempered) Glass of Chinese origin - Countervailing duty - Sunset review investigation Notification, allowing hearing to all the interested parties, who all participated in the investigation and submitted their evidence, data etc. - Power of Central Government - Whether or not to accept the recommendations in terms of Section 9A of the Act read with Rule 18 of the Rules - HELD THAT:- It was submitted that on perusal of Section 9A read with Rules stipulates an administrative discretion granted to the Central Government to decide to impose or not to impose antidumping duty. It was submitted that plain reading of Section 9A(1) of the Act gives a discretion to the Central Government as the word may is used in both the Act and the Rules and not the word shall and therefore, the Central Government may disagree with the final findings and recommendations given by the Designated Authority. It was submitted that there is no jurisdictional error committed by the respondent No. 1 in issuing the impugned Office Memorandum as the said Notification is not issued while exercising quasi-judicial powers, but it is a legislative power to levy the antidumping duty or not and therefore, the decision not to issue a Notification for imposing / continuing the anti-dumping duty by not accepting the recommendations of the Designated Authority in general public interest cannot be the subject matter of the judicial review in this petition. It was submitted that the legal provisions of the Act and the Rules does not provide that the recommendations of the Designated Authority are binding on the Central Government. It is pertinent to note that the provisions of countervailing duty and the anti-dumping duty are similar in nature and the Notifications under the Act being in quasi-judicial exercise, which are amenable to appeal and the challenge, were held to be subjected to judicial review in the writ jurisdiction also. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, wherein it is held that recommendations of the Designated Authority are not binding on the Central Government and therefore, the Central Government would have its own decision after recommendations of the Designated Authority are made available to it in accordance with the statutory procedure. In the facts of the case, the Central Government, after considering the recommendations of the Designated Authority, has taken a decision not to extend the anti-dumping duty, for which, no interference can be made while exercising writ jurisdiction as it would be in the domain of the Central Government to decide as to whether the anti-dumping duty should be continued in the public interest taking into consideration all the various factors. Thus, this petition, being devoid any merit, is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 24 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530