Does CESTAT Have Power To Hear Challenges Against Central Govt Notifications On Anti-Dumping Duty? Delhi High Court Stays Tribunal’s Order, Sets Issue For Examination
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain stayed an interim order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a dispute concerning anti-dumping duty on semi-finished ophthalmic lenses imported from China. The Court noted that the matter raised the question of whether CESTAT can entertain challenges to Central Government notifications imposing such duties, in light of amendments introduced by Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Bench decided to examine this issue while allowing CESTAT to continue hearing appeals limited to the designated authority’s findings
The Delhi High Court heard a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an interim order passed on 26 August 2025 by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The proceedings before CESTAT arose out of the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of semi-finished ophthalmic lenses originating from China. Following recommendations of the designated authority on 29 September 2022, the Central Government issued a notification dated 27 December 2022 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty for five years.
Several appeals were filed before CESTAT challenging both the designated authority’s determination and the Central Government’s notification. While these appeals were pending, the Finance Act, 2023 introduced amendments to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 through Section 134, with retrospective effect from 1 January 1995. The amendments altered Section 9C concerning appeals to CESTAT.
The Union of India contended that Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 came into force automatically upon notification of the Act, and therefore CESTAT had no jurisdiction over challenges to government notifications. The respondents argued that no separate notification had been issued bringing Section 134 into force, and thus the amendments had not taken effect. The central dispute concerned whether CESTAT retained jurisdiction to adjudicate challenges to the notification imposing anti-dumping duty in light of these amendments.
The Court recorded that “the interim order which has now been passed by the CESTAT, holding that Section 134 of the FA, 2023, was not separately notified by the Central Government and hence, the amended Section 9C has not even come into effect.” It observed that this finding formed the subject of challenge before it.
The Court noted the submission of the Additional Solicitor General that Section 1(2) of the Finance Act, 2023 used the expression “save as otherwise provided in this Act” and that “the minute the FA, 2023 is notified, Section 134 also stands notified.”
The Court also recorded the argument of counsel for the respondents that “in the absence of the said notification, Section 134 of the FA, 2023 has thus not come into force.” The respondents distinguished provisions related to other indirect taxes which had been separately notified.
The Court stated that “the effect of this cauldron would be the question as to whether the CESTAT would have jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the notification by the Central Government imposing Anti-Dumping Duty or not.” It further observed that “the issue requires consideration as the interim order of the CESTAT holding that the said provisions have not been notified, could have unintended consequences.”
Finally, the Bench recorded that “Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, pre and post amendment does not leave any doubt that insofar as the determination of Anti-Dumping Duty is concerned, the appeal could be heard by CESTAT. It is only in respect of an order by the Government notifying, modifying or not notifying Anti-Dumping Duty that the dispute has arisen.”
The Court directed that “there shall be a stay of the interim order No. 5.2025 dated 26th August, 2025 passed by CESTAT.” It clarified, however, that “CESTAT would be free to proceed with hearing of the appeals, only insofar as they relate to the final findings of the designated authority. The pendency of this proceeding would not affect the final hearing of the appeals in respect of the final findings of the designated authority.”
“Issue notice. Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, ld. Counsel accepts notice.” It then fixed a schedule for pleadings: “Let the counter affidavit be filed on behalf of the Respondents within 4 weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 2 weeks thereafter.”
The Court also recalled its order in earlier writ petitions, where petitioners had not pressed their challenge after the CESTAT’s interim order but were granted liberty to revive proceedings if the position on notification of Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 changed.
“Ld. Counsels for both the parties may file their written submissions,” and scheduled the matter for further consideration with the direction: “List for hearing on 24th November, 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. N Venkataraman, ASG, Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC for CVIC, Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC for CBIC with Mr. Ritwik Saha, Mr. Chandrashekhar Bharati, Mr. Shivshankar G, Mr. Nakul Madhan, Mr. Abhishekie R, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Devindra Bagia, Mr. Ankur Sharma, Mr. Agrim Arora, Advocates.
Case Title: Union of India vs. EssilorLuxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8462-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 14723/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh, Justice Shail Jain
