Summary: Ant- Dumping Case: Concept of dumping explained. Section 31 Anti Dumping Act, 2015, explained. NTC not required to first give an independent decision or determination before delivering its preliminary determination. Concession of parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court. Suit barred in view of Section 70 of the Anti Dumping Act, 2015. Confidentiality issue to be considered by Appellate Forum. Information and database about prices of a product obtained from Customs Department, not confidential, unless otherwise barred by any statute or rule. Decisions of National Tariff Commission should not be resulting in creating directly or indirectly any monopoly or cartel of any business. Claim of confidentiality should be decided on the touchstone of Article 19A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002. Role of National Tariff Commission is very significant vis-a-vis CPEC. NTC to ensure that local industry is not destroyed. Time enlarged for filing Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Case referred to National Tariff Commission.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199—Writ jurisdiction—Maintainability—Show cause notice—Initiation of investigation—No adverse order—Premature petition—Principles Petitioners challenged notice dated 04.05.2024 issued by National Tariff Commission (NTC) initiating anti-circumvention investigation under S.63(4) of Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015—Held, notice merely invited interested parties to submit comments/evidence within 45 days and did not constitute an adverse action—Court ruled petition was premature as no determination or penalty had been passed—Established principle that a writ petition is not maintainable against a mere initiation of investigation or show-cause notice unless issued without jurisdiction or due to mala fides—Petitioners directed to raise objections and submit evidence before NTC during pending inquiry. Cited Cases: • Sadiq Poultry Pvt. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2025 Lahore 57 • Strategic Plans Division v. Punjab Revenue Authority PLD 2024 Lahore 545 • Shaheen Merchant v. Federation of Pakistan 2021 PTD 2126 (Lahore) • Tasneem Enterprises v. National Tariff Commission CP D-4261/2024, Sindh High Court (28.01.2025) • Niaz Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan WP No. 3396-P/2024, Peshawar High Court (12.03.2025) • Mian Azam Waheed Case (Supreme Court dictum on exhaustion of remedies) (b) Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 ----Ss. 63, 70—Initiation of anti-circumvention investigation—Scope—Remedies under special statute—Jurisdiction of High Court—Exhaustion of remedies Notice of initiation under S.63(4) of Anti-Dumping Duties Act is not a final determination but a procedural step allowing stakeholders to participate—Petitioners had adequate statutory remedy to submit comments or file appeal under S.70 of the Act after final determination—Held, bypassing special statutory mechanisms undermines regulatory process—Judicial review barred where effective remedy is provided under special law—High Court directed parties to exhaust NTC process before invoking constitutional jurisdiction. (c) Trade Remedies—Anti-Dumping vs. Anti-Circumvention ----Comparative scope—Nature of investigations—Purpose Anti-dumping investigations address underpricing of foreign goods harming domestic industry—Anti-circumvention proceedings seek to ensure anti-dumping measures are not bypassed through technical or strategic modifications (e.g., relabeling, re-routing)—In present case, NTC initiated anti-circumvention investigation after determining prima facie evidence of evasion through minor modification of paperboard—Held, such investigations are within NTC’s regulatory mandate as per S.63—No case made out for judicial interference at initiation stage. (d) Procedural Law—Disputed questions of fact—Scope of judicial review ----Determination of factual controversies—Limited scope under Art.199—Forum of competent authority Petition raised disputed questions regarding classification of goods and alleged misapplication of customs declarations—Held, such factual inquiries fall within exclusive jurisdiction of NTC and cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings—Court reiterated settled law that it cannot assume fact-finding role in constitutional jurisdiction—Disputes regarding product classification, circumvention techniques, or material evidence must be presented before the investigative forum. Disposition: Petition dismissed—Held to be premature and not maintainable—Petitioners advised to submit reply and objections before NTC during ongoing anti-circumvention investigation—No adverse order had yet been passed.

Summary: (a) Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 – S. 70(13), S. 18, S. 39, S. 58: —Scope of appellate jurisdiction—Standard of review in anti-dumping cases—Finality of factual determinations by Commission and Appellate Tribunal The appellants, importers of Duplex Board, challenged the final determination of the National Tariff Commission (NTC) imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports from China, Indonesia, and South Korea. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding: Limited Scope of Review: Appeals under S. 70(13) are akin to second appeals under S. 100 CPC and are limited to questions of law. The Court cannot reappraise evidence or disturb concurrent factual findings. Finality of Commission's Determination: The Commission’s factual conclusions regarding dumping, injury, and causation were reached through a detailed investigation, satisfying the procedural requirements of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015. Timeliness of Final Determination: The Commission issued its final determination within the prescribed period under S. 39 and S. 58 of the Act. Held, appeal dismissed; concurrent findings of the Commission and Appellate Tribunal upheld. (b) Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 – S. 18(1), (2), (3): —Causal link between dumping and injury—Non-attribution analysis—Rejection of alternative explanations for injury The appellants argued that factors such as gas shortages, power outages, and production inefficiencies, rather than dumping, caused injury to the domestic industry. The High Court rejected this contention, holding: Attribution and Non-Attribution Analysis: Under S. 18, the Commission conducted a proper examination of causal factors. Market Conditions Considered: The Commission determined that there was no contraction in demand, no significant technological changes, and no other trade restrictions affecting domestic sales. Reliance on WTO Jurisprudence: The Commission’s approach was consistent with international anti-dumping standards, including the WTO’s interpretation in European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina (WT/DS 473/R). Held, injury to domestic industry was properly linked to dumped imports; alternative explanations for injury rejected. (c) Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 – S. 2(d) (Definition of "Domestic Industry"): —Status of complainant as a domestic industry—Effect of related-party imports on eligibility to file complaint The appellants contended that Century Paper & Board Mills, the complainant in the anti-dumping case, was related to an importer (Merit Packaging) and thus did not qualify as a "domestic industry." The High Court rejected this argument, holding: Insignificant Import Volume: Merit Packaging’s imports amounted to only 0.5% of total imports, which did not affect Century Paper’s standing as a domestic producer. Lack of Controlling Relationship: Mere common directorship between Century Paper and Merit Packaging did not establish control, as both companies operated independently. Commission’s Proper Application of Law: The Commission correctly applied the Explanation to S. 2(d) and found that Century Paper remained a legitimate domestic producer eligible to file an anti-dumping complaint. Held, complainant’s status as a domestic industry upheld; related-party import argument rejected. (d) Procedural Validity of Anti-Dumping Investigation – S. 20, S. 24, S. 27, S. 29, S. 37, S. 39: —Sufficiency of evidence for initiation of investigation—Timely conclusion of proceedings—Compliance with statutory requirements The appellants argued that the Commission failed to meet procedural requirements for initiating and concluding the investigation. The Court held: Proper Initiation of Investigation: The application by Century Paper met the threshold under S. 20 and S. 24, with sufficient industry support. Timely Preliminary and Final Determinations: The Commission complied with S. 29 by concluding the investigation within 18 months and issuing determinations within the statutory timeframes. Adequate Notice and Public Participation: The investigation process provided notice to all stakeholders and allowed them to participate, in line with S. 27, S. 37, and S. 39. Held, procedural compliance established; no legal basis to invalidate anti-dumping duties. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed. Anti-dumping duties upheld. The findings of the National Tariff Commission and Appellate Tribunal affirmed.

Summary: The petitioner, M/S Z A Corporation, filed a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Member and Chairman of the National Tariff Commission (NTC), Islamabad, through two notifications dated 30.08.2023. The petitioner also challenged an order dated 04.05.2024 passed under Section 63 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015. The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Lahore High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction and the petition should be filed in the Islamabad High Court. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Does the Lahore High Court have territorial jurisdiction to hear this constitutional petition challenging the appointment of a federal official posted in Islamabad? ----- 2) Can a writ of quo warranto be filed in any High Court of Pakistan, or does territorial jurisdiction limit the court’s authority? ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Territorial Jurisdiction: The court ruled that it lacks territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. According to Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan, a writ of quo warranto requires the person holding the public office to be within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. In this case, respondent No. 3 holds office in Islamabad, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court, not Lahore. ----- Writ of Quo Warranto: The court emphasized that for a writ of quo warranto, the individual against whom the petition is filed must hold or purport to hold a public office within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Since respondent No. 3 is stationed in Islamabad, the appropriate venue for filing the petition is the Islamabad High Court. ----- Precedents: The court referenced case law to support its conclusion, including the judgment in Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Central Board of Revenue and others (PLD 1997 SC 334), where the Supreme Court emphasized that the dominant object of the petition determines jurisdiction. In this case, the dominant object concerns a federal appointment in Islamabad, and therefore the petition should be filed in the Islamabad High Court. ----- Outcome: The petition was dismissed on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The court directed the petitioner to file the petition in the Islamabad High Court. The petition related to the order under Section 63 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act was also withdrawn by the petitioner during the proceedings. ---- Citations/Precedents: Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (Writ of quo warranto) Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd vs. Central Board of Revenue and others (PLD 1997 SC 334) Mirza Luqman Masud vs. Government of Pakistan (2015 PLC (C.S.) 526) M/S Madni Paper Mart vs. Federation of Pakistan (Writ Petition No. 3965/2023)

Summary: M/S Madni Paper Mart, through its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging the National Tariff Commission's decision to initiate a sunset review under Section 58 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015. The sunset review aimed to determine the likelihood of continued or recurring dumping of certain uncoated writing/printing paper from several countries, potentially harming the domestic industry. ---Issues: 1) Whether the National Tariff Commission's initiation of the sunset review was within the legal time frame stipulated by the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015. ----2) Whether the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, had the jurisdiction to hear the case. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter, as both the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal are established in Islamabad. The court emphasized the principle that jurisdiction cannot be assumed by consent or convenience of the parties but must be vested by law. The court directed the petitioners to present their petition before the Islamabad High Court. ---Citations/Precedents: IZHAR ALAM RAROOQI, ADVOCATE vs. Sheikh ABDUL SATTAR LASI and others (2008 SCMR 240) Rashid Ahmed v. State (PLD 1972 SC 271) Syed MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs. ABDUL QAYYUM and others (2011 SCMR 743) MUNAWAR HUSSAIN and 2 others vs. SULTAN AHMAD (2005 SCMR 1388) Pir SABIR SHAH vs. SHAD MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY, N.-.W.F.P. and another (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 66) M/s Ashfaq Brothers and another vs. Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan and others (2023 LHC 484 LHC website) HASSAN SHAHJEHAN vs. FPSC through Chairman and others (PLD 2017 Lahore 665) Messrs KARACHI IRON AND STEEL MERCANTS ASSOCIATION through Authorised Representative and 30 others vs. ANTI-DUMPING APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 22 others (2021 PTD 1150) TAUFIQ ASIF and others vs. General (Retd.) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF and others (PLD 2024 Supreme Court 610)

Summary: [Anti-Dumping Act, 2015 (Jurisdiction )Here the situation is different as the Tribunal is constituted at Islamabad. Admittedly the appeals preferred by the appellants at Islamabad Tribunal and all parties contested their case at Rawalpindi Bench in FAO, against the said order four appeals are filed at Islamabad High Court, hence I agree with the same referred observation and hold the present appeal (s) to beincompetent. Accordingly, captioned appeals are dismissed on the point of jurisdiction

Summary: Anti-Dumping Act, 2015 (Jurisdiction ), Here the situation is different as the Tribunal is constituted at Islamabad. Admittedly the appeals preferred by the appellants at Islamabad Tribunal and all parties contested their case at Rawalpindi Bench in FAO, against the said order four appeals are filed at Islamabad High Court, hence I agree with the same referred observation and hold the present appeal (s) to beincompetent. Accordingly, captioned appeals are dismissed on the point of jurisdiction