Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Decision not to impose Anti-Dumping Duty not sustained when not following Recommendation made by Designated Authority: CESTAT [Read Order]

Decision not to impose Anti-Dumping Duty not sustained when not following Recommendation made by Designated Authority: CESTAT [Read Order]
X

While considering a bunch of appeals, the Principal Bench of New Delhi Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that decision not to impose anti-dumping duty is not sustainable when not following the recommendation made by the designated authority. The appellants contended that the office memorandums, communicating the decision of the Central Government not...


While considering a bunch of appeals, the Principal Bench of New Delhi Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that decision not to impose anti-dumping duty is not sustainable when not following the recommendation made by the designated authority.

The appellants contended that the office memorandums, communicating the decision of the Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty/safeguard duty, despite a recommendation having been made by the designated authority in the final findings to impose anti-dumping duty/safeguard duty is not valid as it violated the principles of natural justice.

The appellant, Apcotex Industries had applied to the designated authority for the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation under the provisions of the Tariff Act and the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 for the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of the subject goods from the subject countries, alleging dumping and consequent injury where the final finding was issued.

It was evident that the Central Government, as a delegated legislative body, performs two distinct and separate functions in the context of the levy of anti-dumping and safeguard duty. The function of deciding in individual cases by applying the broad legislative framework and policy already set out in the Statute is a quasi-judicial function required to follow the principles of natural justice.

A Coram presided by Justice Dilip Gupta, Mr P V Subba Rao, member (technical) and Ms Rachana Gupta, member (judicial) observed that the decision taken by the Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty despite a recommendation having been made by the designated authority for imposition of anti-dumping duty, cannot be sustained and remitted the matter to the Central Government for taking a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the designated authority.

The Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Central Government to reconsider the recommendation made by the designated authority.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019