MADNI PAPER MART through Proprietor Irshad Ahmad vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MADNI PAPER MART through Proprietor Irshad Ahmad VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce Ss. 58 & 64---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Anti-dumping duties, matter of---Territorial jurisdiction of Islamabad High Court---Scope---Constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court calling in question an order passed by the National Tariff Commission, Government of Pakistan, ('Commission') whereby the Commission decided to initiate sunset review---Validity---Court/Tribunal has to make sure that it has jurisdiction to ponder upon an issue-in-question---Jurisdiction cannot be vested to the court with the consent of the parties or at their whims unless it is so equipped under the law---In order to give effect in Pakistan to the provisions of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994, and to the Agreement on implementation thereof and to amend and consolidate the law relating to imposition of anti-dumping duties to offset, etc. such dumping, Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 ('the Act, 2015'), was promulgated---Any person aggrieved or interested from the initiation of investigation or preliminary determination or even final determination can prefer an appeal before the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal Pakistan ('Tribunal') constituted by the Federal Government in terms of S. 64 of the Act, 2015---In the present case, upon an application moved by a domestic industry (respondent), investigation was started by the Commission; in furtherance of which preliminary determination was made which later on matured into final determination---Feeling offended from the final determination a large number of exporters preferred their appeals before the Tribunal along with two importers, which were directly related to the petitioners being their importers---Tribunal proceeded to dismiss all but two appeals, which (two appeals) were remanded to the Commission for decision a fresh---Due to one reason or the other the Commission could not conduct the proceedings and instead after passing considerable period issued the impugned notification for sunset review---Thus, undoubtedly, the impugned notice was an offshoot of the proceedings which earlier not only came up in appeal before the Tribunal but the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, also---In such a case exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by (Lahore High) Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution would amount to launching parallel proceedings, which would certainly result into overlapping and conflicting judgments---Moreover, not only the Commission but the Tribunal were established at Islamabad---Even otherwise, as an outcome of sunset review the matter would again become the subject of appeal before the Tribunal---Thus, the Lahore High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter-in- hand---Petition was returned to the petitioner for institution of the same before Court of competent jurisdiction (Islamabad High Court)----Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

MADNI PAPER MART through Proprietor Irshad Ahmad vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce Ss — 2025 PTD 682 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PTD