2020 PLP 1245 (PTD)

SHAKIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.

Through the instant petition final determination and levy of definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Dumped imports of Cold Rolled Coils/Sheets/Strips into Pakistan originating in and/or exported from Canada and the Russian Federation dated 16-3-2020 under the provisions of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 has been challenged by the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner has imported raw material of steel sheets and coils from Canada and he is unable to file his 'goods declaration' under the provisions of Section 79 of the Customs Act, 1969 due to demand of illegal anti-dumping duty.

2. At the outset learned Assistant Attorney General, as well as learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 have pointed out that the petitioner has already filed an appeal under section 70 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 before the learned Appellate Tribunal, which is pending adjudication and that the said Tribunal is fully functional. Accordingly, instant constitutional petition is not maintainable.

3. In response to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the appeal before the learned Tribunal is not an adequate remedy. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases reported as Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others v. Messrs Pak-Saudi Fertilizer Ltd. and another (2001 SCMR 777), Messrs Bhimra Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized representative v. Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority through Chairman and others (2019 CLC 1247), Rehmatullah alias Rematoli v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs Peshawar and others (PLD 2018 Peshawar 17), Augere Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Attorney v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Ministry of Finance and 4 others (2015 PTD 1340), Bank of Punjab through Group Head of its Special Projects v. Accountability Court No.1, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 2014 Lahore 92), Muhammad Akbar v. Muhammad Malik and another (PLD 2005 Lahore 1) and Rizwan Ullah v. Registrar/President, Cooperative Societies, N.W.F.P., Peshawar and 3 others (PLD 2003 Peshawar 203), United Business Lines, S.I.E. Gujranwala and another v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, Local Government Lahore and 5 others (PLD 1997 Lahore 456).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the period of investigation for the alleged dumping has been taken for 12 months starting from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2018, whereas the lawful period of investigation had to be for the period of 12 months preceding the 'month' of initiation of investigation, which in this case should have been from 01.4.2018 to 30.4.2019 for the reason that the month of initiation of investigation was May, 2019. Accordingly, he stated that the impugned final determination is void, in view of Section 36 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015.

5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the appeal before the learned Tribunal is admittedly an adequate remedy and in this regard they have referred to a number of orders of this Court, whereby the constitutional petitions were either dismissed or disposed of and even withdrawn, in view of the fact that the learned Appellate Tribunal is competent to hear the appeals and for the reason that the appeal was an adequate and an efficacious remedy. The orders referred to by the learned counsel representing the respondents are noted below:- Sr. Case Number Order dated

01. W.P. No. 235230 of 2018 20-9-2019

02. W.P. No. 3318 of 2019 20-9-2019

03. W.P. No. 8070 of 2019 12-12-2019

04. W.P. No. 10029 of 2019 12-12-2019

05. W.P. No. 11083 of 2019 12-12-2019

06. W.P. No. 14405 of 2019 09-12-2019

07. W.P. No. 29473 of 2019 13-9-2019

08. W.P. No. 49421 of 2019 20-9-2019

09. W.P. No. 49423 of 2019 20-9-2019

10. W.P. No. 49425 of 2019 20-9-2019

11. W.P. No. 49426 of 2019 20-9-2019

12. W.P. No. 49427 of 2019 20-9-2019

13. W.P. No. 49428 of 2019 20-9-2019

14. W.P. No. 49429 of 2019 20-9-2019

15. W.P. No. 49430 of 2019 20-9-2019

16. W.P. No. 49431 of 2019 20-9-2019 Learned counsel for the said respondents also relied upon the judgment dated 24.4.2020 passed by this Court in W.P. No.24269 of 2019 whereby it was inter alia held that in such matters a person must not be permitted to bypass the remedy provided in the relevant statute to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution.

6. As far as the period of investigation is concerned, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no serious consequence and in any case the same can validly be looked into by the learned Appellate Tribunal.

7. I have gone through the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the instant case, hence not applicable to the matter at hand. It has not been shown that the final determination which has been challenged through the instant constitutional petition is without lawful authority or without jurisdiction or based on mala fide. It has also not been demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said final determination falls outside the scope of the relevant provisions of the governing law. Learned Appellate Tribunal is yet to decide the matter and it has all the powers of a civil court as mentioned in Section 72 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015, therefore, the said remedy is not only efficacious but also adequate. During the course of arguments, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 further pointed out that if the petitioner submits an application for an early hearing before the learned Appellate Tribunal, the appeal filed by the petitioner will be taken up expeditiously, as per practice of the learned Appellate Tribunal. It is further noted that no serious question of law has been raised through the instant petition and secondly, I would not like to comment on the arguments relating to period of investigation raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, least it may prejudice the case of either side and accordingly, I would like to leave the question open for the learned Appellate Tribunal to decide the same.

8. In this view of the matter, I am not satisfied that the alternate remedy as already adopted by the petitioner is not efficacious, convenient, beneficial, effective and speedy. In reaching this conclusion, I am fortified by the law laid down in the cases reported as Indus Trading and Contracting Company v. Collector of Customs (Preventive) Karachi and others (2016 SCMR 842), Dr. Sher Afghan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others (2011 SCMR 1813) and Muhammad Abbasi v. S.H.O. Bhara Kahu and 7 others (PLD 2010 SC 969). It goes without saying that the learned Appellate Tribunal will of course decide the appeal of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

9. In view of the above noted reasons, this constitutional petition is dismissed. KMZ/S-38/L Petition dismissed.