The research paper plunges into the latest retrospective amendment introduced by the Finance Bill, 2023 to Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and its profound impact on the appellate jurisdiction of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“CESTAT”) concerning antidumping measures. The amendment revolves around the term, “order of determination,” engendering bewilderment about whether it encompasses solely the findings of the Director General of Trade Remedial Measures (“DGTR”) or also encompasses the government’s decision not to impose antidumping duties. The paper evaluates the twostep process of anti-dumping measures: DGTR’s investigation and the Department of Revenue’s imposition of duties. It scrutinizes the historical context, legislative intent, and judicial interpretations of this issue. The paper dedicates considerable effort to dissecting the effects of the amendment on the appellate jurisdiction of CESTAT, its repercussions for domestic industries, and the delicate equilibrium India maintains between fulfilling its international obligations under the AntiDumping Agreement (“ADA”) while exercising its sovereign right to enact domestic legislation. Intriguingly, despite potential conflicts between the amendment and the ADA, the paper posits that the amendment might find validation due to the inherent principle that domestic laws hold precedence over international commitments. The avenues left for aggrieved parties to challenge the amendment encompass seeking judicial review based on procedural irregularity and irrationality within the Act. The paper concludes by acknowledging that the true consequences of the amendment will unfold through practical cases and the evolving legal landscape.
