KARACHI: A single bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC), comprising Justice Salahuddin Panhwar dismissed appeals filed by M/s Abika Enterprises and others challenging impugned judgment passed by Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal Pakistan in Appeal Nos.291, 296, 299, 300 of 2018. A details judgment has been released dated March 6, 2021.
Court observes in its verdict that “appeals are against the judgment dated 28.02.2020 passed by the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal Pakistan, Precisely, brief facts are that the respondent No.2 preferred appeals before the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal and as referred the all appeals were allowed (they were dismissed).
Being aggrieved the present appellants have filed captioned miscellaneous appeals before this Court.
It has come on record that appellants in M.A. No.22 of 2020 have also filed appeal before Islamabad High Court against the same judgment and on same cause of action, learned counsel for the appellants has referred judgments and contended that the Federation notified the Tribunal though Federation was under obligation to establish Tribunal in every province but at present in Islamabad such Tribunal exists.
The appellants participated and contested the case before the Tribunal and they have every right as per Sandalbar`s case, LPG`s case and Ayyan Ali`s case to choose any Court as per their convenience.
It is also contended that the judgment passed by the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal is in rem and it has affected the appellants and other importers/companies having the same business. It is also contended that any Act of Federation can be challenged before any High Court of any Province.
In contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 has relied upon case reported in 2012 CLC 507 (Haji Riaz Ahmed through Attorney vs. Messrs Habib Bank Limited through President and 2 others), 2018 PLC (C.S.) 555 (Karamat Ullah Khan Chaudhry vs. Federation of Pakistan and 2 others), PLD 1997 SC 334 (Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd vs. Central Board of Revenue and others) and contends that the appellants contested the appeals filed by the respondents under Section 70(1) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 and same were dismissed and now they are here in Miscellaneous Appeals; learned counsel has referred FAO No.46 of 2020 with Paragraph 4 and which contains that “in view of statement by learned counsel for the parties, this and connected appeals i.e. FAO Nos.47, 50, 54 and 55 of 2020 are returned on the ground of jurisdiction”.
While learned Assistant Attorney General adopts the arguments of learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as case law referred by the respective parties.
It is an undeniable position that the appellant (s) did contest the matter before the Tribunal, constituted at Islamabad over which this Court has got no administrative control therefore, mere plea of ‘convenience’ is never sufficient for choosing the Court (s) rather it is always the commandment of the law and law alone which describes the ‘jurisdiction’.
Failure of the Federation in establishing Tribunal (s) at other provinces is also no ground to press right of convenience. Further, the matter appears to be between the parties alone hence the same, legally, can’t be taken as having applicability thereof on people at large.
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 be incompetent. Accordingly, captioned appeals are dismissed on the point of jurisdiction”.
