Page 266 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

248 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

mandated and required. Negative finding in other words is binding on the
Central Government and cannot be interfered with. Negative final finding
order or termination order is determinative, and not a mere recommenda-
tion as in the case of positive finding proposing imposition of Anti-
dumping duty.
35. There is, therefore, merit in the contention of the third respondent that
Section 9C of the CT Act in the present case has to be interpreted in a man-
ner so as not to frustrate its purpose i.e. to provide appellate remedy both
in cases of “order of determination” and review. Accordingly, it will be
contrary and would be against the legislative intent to hold and interpret
that there is no right to appeal under Section 9C of the CT Act, when the
Designated Authority does not propose imposition of Anti-dumping duty.
As the Central Government is bound by the final finding of the Designated
Authority, the final finding of the Designated Authority becomes the final
finding and “order of determination” passed by the Central Government
for the purpose of Section 9C of the CT Act. We would interpret the statute
i.e. Section 9C in a manner that it would effectuate and not frustrate the
purpose of the legislation that a party should have a right of appeal against
the quasi-judicial determination in relation to orders determining existence,
degree and effect of any subsidy or dumping of articles imported into In-
dia.
36. Section 9C does not state and provide that an appeal is maintainable
against customs notification. However, it refers to and states that an appeal
would lie against the “order of determination” regarding existence, degree
and effect of dumping. The words “existence, degree and effect of dump-
ing” are significant. The final finding of the Designated Authority in the
said aspect can be in positive i.e. when it recommends imposition of Anti-
dumping duty or may be in negative when it finds and holds that no Anti-
dumping [duty] should be imposed. Upon negative finding by the Desig-
nated Authority no further action is contemplated and required by the Cen-
tral Government. Contention of the petitioner that the “order of determina-
tion” would mean notification imposing Anti-dumping [duty] and not a
negative final finding of the Designated Authority under Rule 17, which is
not recommendatory but the final determination, is erroneous and bad in
law. In case of negative determination the finding of the Designated Au-
thority is binding, it gives no discretion to the Central Government. There-
upon, the determination becomes the determinative order in the sense that
no Anti-dumping duty can be imposed.
37. Negative finding of the Designated Authority does not require a noti-
fication, a legislative act, ergo the said final finding gets stamped and ap-
proved by the Statute itself as binding decision of the Central Government.
38. Therefore, in this context of the statutory provisions we would reject
the argument of the petitioner that Section 9C postulates an appeal only
against “order of determination” in the form of notification imposing Anti-
dumping duty and not against the negative final finding of the Designated
Authority. To say that in case of negative findings the Designated Authori-
ty in its order of determination goes into the question of existence, degree
and effect of dumping, yet no appeal would lie, would be incongruous and
clearly contradictory.”
22. The Delhi High Court in the aforesaid judgment, has distinguished
the final findings of a Designated Authority when a recommendation is made for

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  266