Appeal Against Govt’s Decision On Anti-Dumping Duty Lies Before CESTAT: Delhi High Court
Delhi HC Flags Dual ITC Demand on Sweet Shop-Cum-Restaurant; Limits Pre-Deposit for Appeal
The Delhi High Court has held that the appeal against govt’s decision on anti-dumping duty lies before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta while refusing to interfere in the writ petition observed that in terms of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, once a decision is taken by the Central Government, an appeal would lie before CESTAT against the imposition of the Anti-Dumping Duty.
The bench stated that the final findings are not fully binding on the Central Government and, therefore, at this stage, the writ petition is pre-mature in the opinion of the Court. Hence, once the final findings issued by the designated authority are imposed in the form of notification by the Central Government, it is then that the Petitioners can have a grievance and at that stage, they are free to avail of their remedies in accordance with law.
The petitioner/assessee, M/s Engel Machinery Changzhou Co. Ltd. and M/s Engel Machinery (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. have challenged the impugned final findings dated 27th March, 2025, rendered by the Director General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the product under consideration-plastic processing machines (PUC) originating in or exported from China PR and Taiwan.
The Petitioners contended that the DGTR had initiated investigation concerning imports in respect of the PUC under consideration. The Petitioners were included as interested parties in the investigation.
The Petitioners had fully participated in the investigation proceedings vide written submissions as also through virtual hearings. The notice finalising the PCN methodology to be adopted for the anti-dumping investigation was issued by the DGTR. The questionnaires were answered by the Petitioners and legal submissions were also made.
Thus, the Court was of the opinion that the petition does not merit any interference of the Court at this stage.
Case Details
Case Title: Engel Machinery Changzhou Co Ltd Versus Directorate General Of Trade Remedies & Anr.
Case No.: W.P.(C) 6226/2025 & CM APPL. 28444/2025
Date: 26th May, 2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv.
Counsel For Respondent: Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC
Mariya is the Senior Editor at JurisHour. She has 5+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies like LiveLaw & Taxscan.
