Union of India Vs Essilorluxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. And Ors. (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court has taken up a petition filed by the Union of India challenging an interim order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The core issue before the High Court is the jurisdiction of CESTAT to hear challenges against Central Government notifications that impose Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD), particularly in light of amendments introduced by the Finance Act, 2023 (FA, 2023).
The dispute stems from an ADD imposed by the Central Government on semi-finished ophthalmic lenses (PUC) from China, following the designated authority’s recommendations. Appeals challenging both the initial determination and the subsequent Central Government notification were filed before CESTAT.
The Legal Dispute: Section 9C Amendment
The controversy centers on the interpretation and commencement of Section 134 of the FA, 2023, which retrospectively amended Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, effective from January 1, 1995.
Pre-Amendment (Section 9C): An appeal lay to CESTAT against the “order of determination or review” of ADD. This wording was often interpreted to exclude the final Central Government notification that formally imposes the duty from CESTAT’s appellate jurisdiction.
Post-Amendment (Section 9C): The amendment omits the word “order” and replaces it in certain sub-sections with “determination or review”. This revision appears to restrict CESTAT’s jurisdiction to only the “determination or review” carried out by the designated authority, potentially excluding the final notification by the Central Government.
