The main legal point established in the judgment is that the levy of anti-dumping duty through a subsequent notification without following the proper procedure is without authority of law and violates the imperative nature of the relevant statutory provisions.

Ravindra Bhat, J.

% C.M. NO. 3867/2014 (for exemption) IN W.P.(C) 1851/2014

C.M. NO. 3887/2014 (for exemption) IN W.P.(C) 1866/2014

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 1851/2014, C.M. NO. 3866/2014

W.P.(C) 1866/2014, C.M. NO. 3886/2014

1. This judgment is in respect of writ petitions W.P.(C) 1851/14 and 1866/14. The petitioners calls into question the legality of the Central Government's decision initiating anti-dumping duty extension proceedings under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (“CTA”) as well as the validity of notification No. 06/2014-Customs (ADD) by which anti-dumping duty was levied on Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber ("the product"), originating in, or exported from Korea RP. The said notification sought to amend a previous one, dated 2nd January 2009 (hereafter "the original notification") by which such anti-dumping duty was levied for five years.

2. The brief facts are that the Central Government, in terms of provisions of the CTA, held inquiry in accordance with Rules framed under that enactment; pursuant to the report furnished by the Designated Authority, the Central Government imposed anti-dumping duty on the product, by notification issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 01/2009-Customs, dated 02-01-2009 (and published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), by G.S.R. 5(E), dated the 2nd January, 2009). The notification in express terms was to be in force for five years, i.e. till 01- 01-2014.

3. The petitioner in W.P.(C) 1851/2014 is a producer and exporter of the product from Korea RP and the petitioner in W.P. (C) 1866/2014 is an importer of the product from Korea RP. Both petitioners are aggrieved by the notifications dated 31-12-2013 and 23-1-2014 by Respondent 1. The Respondent No. 1 is the Ministry of Finance, Union of India. Respondent No. 2 is the Directorate of Antidumping and Allied Duties appointed under Section 9A of the CTA read with Rule 3 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury), 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The Respondent No. 3 is the applicant domestic industry which filed a request to initiate a sunset review to extend the antidumping duty on import of the product originating in, or exported from, Korea RP.

4. India is a signatory to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization in 1994. Pursuant to this, she has implemented the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 referred to as the Antidumping Agreement (hereafter referred to as "ADA"), which is one of the Agreements that forms part of the WTO treaty. In terms of Article 18.4 of the ADA, each Member country is required to ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the ADA. As a consequence, Sections 9A, Section 9AA, Section 9B and Section 9C of the CTA were enacted. The Rules were framed in terms of the powers conferred by Section 9A (6) of the CTA. Section 9A(1) empowers the Central Government, by notification in the official gazette, to impose an anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping i.e. i.e. the difference between the normal value and the export price, in relation to any article which is exported to India at less than its normal value. Under Rule 3, the Central Government has constituted the second respondent to investigate the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping and to submit its final findings in this regard and also to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty which, if levied, would be sufficient to remove injury.

5. In terms of Section 9A(5) of the Act and Rule 23(lB) of the Rules, such duties are effective only for a period not exceeding five years from the date of its imposition. The duty automatically expires five years from the date of imposition unless the second respondent, in a review init