THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ORS. versus M/S. THE ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED

Citation: [2020] 7 S.C.R. 1158 · Decided: 01-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ORS.
v.
M/S. THE ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 3046-3048 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 01, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of
Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Article and for Determination of
Injury) Rules, 1995 – 2(b) and 2(d) – Customs Tariff Act, 1975 –
s.9A – The Respondent asserted that there was dumping of Butanol
by Saudi Arabia and sought imposition of anti-dumping duty – The
Designated Authority (DA) in its findings did not consider it
appropriate to recommend levy of Anti-Dumping duty on the subject
goods from Saudi Arabia and terminated the investigation – Various
Writ Petitions were filed by respondent before the High Court from
time to time – Before the High Court, the respondent contended that
it was a producer of 2-EH which is a ‘like article’ to 2-PH and INA
and it satisfied the criteria u/r. 2(b) r/2. r. 2(d) of the Rules, 1995 to
file for imposition of anti-dumping duty – The first writ petition
filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court and directed
fresh evaluation – However, DA declined to initiate anti-dumping
investigation vide its order dated 05.03.2018 – In second writ
petition, by order dated 28.08.2018 the High Court set aside the
order dated 05.03.2018 and directed the DA to take steps for
initiating investigation to determine the anti-dumping in respect of
import of INA – Pursuant thereto, the DA issued notices and also
sought updated data from the respondent as its initial application
was in 2016 – Another writ petition was filed by the respondent
against the said order – In view of certain observations by the High
Court, the DA was constrained to issue notice of investigation and
it also enlarged the period of investigation – By order dated
22.07.2019, the High Court initiated suo motu contempt petition
proceedings against DA for disobedience of its order dated
28.08.2018 and also ordered the replacement of the incumbent DA
– According to the High Court, the action of DA seeking to enlarge
the period of investigation in the second remand order when it did
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 1158
1158
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
not find any such necessity in relation to the first remand order
clearly indicated its lack of bonafides – Before the Supreme Court,
it was contended that DA acted within the framework of the law
and the consideration of contemporaneous if not the latest data is
a pre-condition for launch of valid investigation by the DA – Held:
The DA, no doubt, follows a prescribed quasi-judicial procedure
where a determination on whether to impose or not to impose anti-
dumping duty takes place – In the instant case, DA having regard
to Para 5.9 of the Manual of Operation for Trade Remedy
Investigations (Period of Investigation and Injury Investigation
period) required the respondent to furnish relatively contemporary
data – Such action cannot be termed as arbitrary – The impugned
orders were plainly erroneous in chastising the DA – Thus, the
impugned orders of the High Court dated 28.08.2018, 22.07.2019
and the order directing replacement of the incumbent DA are set
aside.
Judicial Review – Findings of Designated Authority – The
Constitution arms the High Courts and this court with powers under
Articles 226 and 32 – At the same time, barring exceptional features
necessitating intervention in an ongoing investigation triggered by
a complaint by the concerned domestic industry, judicial review
should not be exercised virtually as a continuous oversight of the
DA’s functions – Supreme Court has cautioned more than once,
that judicial review is to be exercised in a circumspect manner,
especially where final findings are rendered by the DA – Anti-
dumping.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and
the procedure prescribed by the Customs Tariff (Identification,
Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped
Article and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, clearly
disclose an intent that investigations should be completed within
pre-determined time limits and the levy itself (which can be
specific to foreign exporter or country – or combination of
both-) cannot be more than five years – which may, after due
review in accordance with prescribed procedure, before expiry
of the said period, be extended by another period not more than
five years. These timelines are cru

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.