ISLAMABAD: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has dismissed a petition filed against the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on the import of galvanised coils and sheets from China for another period of five years from February 8, 2022.
The LHC added that remedy of appeal is available before a specially constituted Appellate Tribunal against the orders of the National Tariff Commission. It is observed that the statute has provided a remedy of appeal under Section 70 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015.
In this regard, the LHC has issued an order against the petitioners.
Tile importer secures refund of provisional anti-dumping duty
“The accumulative effect of this discussion is that when the statute has provided specific remedies of appeal to the petitioner against Final Determination, and when right of another appeal is still available after the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, then in such a situation, the petitioners have no authority to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court,” the LHC observed.
Through this constitutional petition, petitioners (M/s A&A Pipe Industries, etc) have called into question the vires, validity and legality of the conclusion of the sunset review dated August 30, 2022, and notice dated August 31, 2022, whereby, the National Tariff Commission (Commission) while deciding the review held to continue definitive anti-dumping duties for another period of five years w.e.f. February 8, 2022.
M/s International Steel Limited alleged that galvanised coils and sheets are being imported to Pakistan at dumped prices from China and said import has caused and is threatening to cause material injury to the domestic industry. After receipt of the said application, notice of initiating of anti-dumping investigation of galvanised coils and sheets was issued in 2015.
The commission conducted the proceedings of the sunset review and decided that there is a need to continue the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on dumped imports of product under review from China as per specific rates for another period of five years.
Being dissatisfied, petitioners have filed a petition by challenging the decision of said sunset review and notice.
The LHC added that indubitably when an efficacious, alternate and time-bound definite remedy is available before a tribunal specially constituted under the law then resort to extra-ordinary Constitutional jurisdiction before this Court does not find favour under the law since the absence of these conditions are sine qua non for exercising writ jurisdiction.
In view of the above, it can be easily gathered that the instant petition, in the presence of an adequate alternate remedy of appeal, is not maintainable, the LHC judgement added.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024