Lawkidunya Banner

Anti-Dumping Duties Act 2015 Laws 2020 LHC 1249

2020 LHC 1249 Judgment Anti-Dumping Duties Act 2015

2020 LHC 1249 Judgment Anti-Dumping Duties Act 2015, MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.- This consolidated judgment shall decide instant petition, along with connected cases i.e. W.P. Nos.61351, 66020, 66548, 67909,67910, 67913, 67916, 71016 of 2019 & W.P. Nos.8819, 8875,9824, 10107, 11224, 11225 & 11987 of 2020, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.

  1. Through instant petition, petitioner has challenged the vires of Section 14(2) & (4) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 (“the ADD Act”) being ultra vires the Article 10-A of the 2W.P. No.24269 of 2019 & connected cases Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“the Constitution”). Petitioner has also assailed Final Determination dated 25.08.2017, made by the National Tariff Commission (“the NTC”), whereby anti-dumping duties on imports of Polyester Filament Yarn (“PFY”) into Pakistan, were imposed allegedly on account of non-fulfillment of legal requirements under Sections 3, 13, 14(1) & 15 of the ADD Act.
  2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned Final Determination dated 25.08.2017 has been issued in violation of the express provisions of the ADD Act and the National Tariff Commission Act, 2015 (“the NTC Act”). She further submits that the Commission has not considered that PFY identifiable by PCT Heading 5402.4700 is not produced / manufactured in Pakistan, thus, the product does not come within the definitions of “investigated product” and “domestic injury” and the NTC committed gross illegality while making Final Determination. She further submits that act of respondent No.2 regarding imposition of highest Anti-Dumping Duty i.e. 11.35% on “Other Exporting Companies from China” without determination of injury caused to the domestic industry, is arbitrary, without lawful authority and violative of Articles 4, 9, 18 & 25 of the Constitution. She adds that variable Anti-Dumping Duty on exporting companies instead of on the product under investigation with reference to PCT Heading is also against the provisions of the Competition Commission Act, 2010. Download

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *