| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 727 2016 SLD 727 2016 PTD 1334 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 2016 of 2015, decided on 4th February, 2016. Date of hearing: 4th February, 2016.
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, J
Muhammad Anas Makhdoom for Plaintiff. Waqas for Defendants No. 2. Ameen Abbasi and Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi for Defendants Nos. 5 Salman Zaheer for Intervener.
Suit No. 2016 of 2015, decided on 4th February, 2016. Date of hearing: 4th February, 2016.
MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, J
Muhammad Anas Makhdoom for Plaintiff. Waqas for Defendants No. 2. Ameen Abbasi and Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi for Defendants Nos. 5 Salman Zaheer for Intervener.
ELLECOT SPINNING MILLS LTD.
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Trade and Commerce, Islamabad and 6 others
Law: Anti Dumping Duties Ordinance, 2015
Section: 37,23,2(d),2(j)(v)
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 31A
(a) Anti-Dumping Duties Act (XIV of 2015)-----Ss. 37, 23, 2 (d) & 2 (j) (v)----Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 31-A---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Application under O.XXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 for temporary injunction---Anti-Dumping duty, validity of---Effective rate of duty---Applicability---National Tariff Commission issued notice to the plaintiff whereby Anti-Dumping Duty had been preliminary determined under S. 37 of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 on prices of Polyester Staple Fiber---Plaintiff challenged said notice on ground that as the plaintiff had entered into a binding contract by establishing a Letter of Credit, the Anti-Dumping Duty could not be levied on the goods being imported under said Letter of Credit---High Court had already allowed release of consignment pending adjudication of the suit subject to furnishing post-dated cheques in the Court for disputed amount of the duty---Plaintiff, contended that no duty having been levied prior to impugned notice, the plaintiff had acquired vested right, and that no Anti-Dumping duty, therefore, was to be paid---Validity---Matter in question was not a case of any vested rights, which might have accrued to the plaintiff for the reason that the investigation with regard to imposition of the Anti-Dumping Duty had been initiated by the defendant authority in terms of S. 23 of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 when the plaintiff had not established the Letter of Credit---Pursuant to initiation of the investigation, notices had been issued to the respective suppliers and exporters/producers had responded to the request of the defendant for providing information and data for the purpose of the investigation---Plaintiff's plea as to accrual of any vested right was misconceived and factually incorrect, as the Anti-Dumping Duty had been levied on the exporters/producers, who had apparently participated in the investigation proceedings---Applicant/interveners were parties before the authorities in the final determination of levy of the impugned Anti-Dumping Duties---Impugned notice reflected that the investigation under S. 23 of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 had been initiated by the authorities…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492