RISHIROOP POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed essentially to challenge an order passed by the CESTAT on 3 August 2011. The decision of the CESTAT upheld a notification dated 2 January 2009 (Notification 1/2009) issued by the Union of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) imposing definitive Anti-dumping duty on Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber originating in or exported from the Republic of Korea and Germany pursuant to the findings recorded by the Designated Authority on 4 October 2008 in a second sunset review of Anti-dumping duty. The appeal before the CESTAT was filed under the provisions of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised to the maintainability of the Petition on the ground that an appeal would lie against the order passed by the CESTAT under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

(3.) Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides that where any article is exported from any country or territory to India at less than its normal value, then upon the importation of such article into India, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, impose an anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping in relation to such an article. Sub-section 4 provides that the anti dumping duty chargeable under the section shall be in addition to any other duty imposed under the Act or any other law for the time being in force. Section 9C(1) provides that an appeal against the order of determination or review thereof regarding the existence, degree and effect of any subsidy or dumping in relation to import of any article shall lie to the Tribunal constituted under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962.