M/S Double A Packing Vs National Tariff Commission. Etc

Judgment Sheet

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, ABBOTTABAD BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Regular First Appeal No.316-A/2026

M/s Double A Packing... (Appellant) versus National Tariff Commission. Etc. ...(Respondents) Present: Nemo for appellant.

Mr. Rais Mahmood Ali, Advocate for respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 17.09.2026

JUDGMENT

SYED MUDASSER AMEER, J.- Through this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 70(13) of the Anti- Dumping Duties Act, 2015, the appellant has called in question the judgment/order dated 04.05.2026 passed by the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad, relating to the final determination dated 22.05.2025 and consequential notice dated 24.05.2025 issued by the National Tariff Commission, whereby anti-dumping duties were imposed on specified imports originating in and/or exported from China.

(S.B.) Hon’ble Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer.

2.The appeal was admitted for hearing on 27.07.2026.

Thereafter, despite repeated notices, the appellant did not appear before this Court. Notice was also issued to the respondents, whereupon respondent No.2 entered appearance through learned counsel.

3.Heard. Record perused.

4.At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the instant appeal, contending that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a decision of the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad. According to learned counsel, Section 70(13) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 provides a statutory appeal against a decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal before the High Court having jurisdiction over the Tribunal. Reliance has been placed upon Messrs Ashfaq Brothers and another v. Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan through Registrar and others (2024 PTD 1227;

PLD 2024 Lahore 573) and Messrs Karachi Iron and Steel Merchants Association through Authorized Representative and 30 others v. Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal and 22 others (2021 PTD 1150).

(S.B.) Hon’ble Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer.

5.The objection has substance. The Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal is constituted and situated at Islamabad, and the decision sought to be challenged before us is a decision of that Tribunal. Section 70 of the Act establishes a specific appellate hierarchy: an aggrieved person may first approach the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal under the prescribed provisions, while sub-section (13) provides a further appeal against the Tribunal's decision in the High Court. The statutory provision does not confer concurrent appellate jurisdiction upon all High Courts merely because the dispute may have some factual or commercial connection with another province.

6.This question was examined in considerable detail in Messrs Ashfaq Brothers and another v. Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan through Registrar and others (PLD 2024 Lahore 573; 2024 PTD 1227). The Lahore High Court considered the argument that, since the Appellate Tribunal performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, its decisions could be challenged before any High Court. The contention was rejected. Having regard to Article 175 of the Constitution, the constitution and situs of the Tribunal, and the fact that the proceedings before it had originated and culminated at Islamabad, the Court held that the expression “High (S.B.) Hon’ble Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer.

Court” occurring in Section 70(13) of the Act corresponded to the Islamabad High Court, and that the Lahore High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The appeals were consequently returned for presentation before the competent Court.

7.While reaching its conclusion, the learned Court also considered and distinguished the contrary authorities relied upon by the appellants, namely Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Private) Limited v. Pakistan Agro Forestry Corporation (Private) Limited and another (2000 SCMR 1703) and Muhammad Fayyaz v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2022 PTD 399). It observed that the facts in Trading Corporation of Pakistan were entirely different and that the said judgment had been rendered in the context of Article 199 of the Constitution, whereas the question of territorial jurisdiction had not been consciously considered in Muhammad Fayyaz. The Lahore High Court, therefore, concluded that those authorities did not control the specific statutory appeal under Section 70(13) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015

8.The same conclusion was reached earlier by the Sindh High Court in Messrs Karachi Iron and Steel Merchants Association through Authorized Representative and 30 others v. Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal and 22 (S.B.) Hon’ble Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer.

others (2021 PTD 1150). The Court noted that the parties had contested the proceedings before the Tribunal constituted at Islamabad and held that mere convenience of the litigants could not determine territorial jurisdiction.

The Court further treated the dispute as one between the parties rather than a proceeding having effect upon the public at large and held that the appeals lay before the High Court at Islamabad.

9.The statutory appellate structure has also been explained by the Islamabad High Court. In Sohail and Company v. Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal, Islamabad and others (2024 PTD 872), the Court held that an appeal under Section 70(13) is the second appeal contemplated by the Act, the first appeal having already been provided before the Appellate Tribunal. It further observed that, since the Act does not expressly confer any wider jurisdiction upon the High Court, the section 70(13) appeal bears the essential characteristics and restrictions of a second appeal under Section 100, C.P.C.

10.The practice of the Islamabad High Court is consistent with the above construction. In Messrs Spirit Industries (Private) Limited through authorized representative v. Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal (2021 PTD 647), the Islamabad High Court entertained an appeal (S.B.) Hon’ble Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer.

under Section 70(13) against a judgment of the Anti- Dumping Appellate Tribunal concerning final determinations of the National Tariff Commission. More recently, in Dawn Convertec SMC-Private Limited and others v. National Tariff Commission and others (2025 IHC 8), the Islamabad High Court again exercised jurisdiction under Section 70(13) over a decision of the Tribunal.

11.The contrary proposition, namely, that an appellant may select any High Court having a connection with the subject matter merely because the Appellate Tribunal deals with federal affairs, cannot prevail against the express statutory appellate structure and the consistent judicial interpretation noted above. Territorial jurisdiction is conferred by law. It cannot arise from convenience of a litigant, the place where the appellant carries on business, or the circumstance that the consequences of an anti- dumping determination may be felt in another province.

12.In the present case, the impugned order was passed by the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal at Islamabad, the statutory appeal under Section 70(13) being directed against that order. No independent circumstance has been shown which could confer territorial appellate jurisdiction upon this Court. The fact that the appellant may reside or (S.B.) Hon’ble Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer.

carry on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court is, by itself, insufficient to confer jurisdiction where the statute and the nature of the proceedings point to the Islamabad High Court as the competent forum.

13.This Court, therefore, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant statutory appeal. The question of the correctness or otherwise of the final determination dated 22.05.2025 or the consequential notice dated 24.05.2025 need not, consequently, be examined.

14.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, this appeal is dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant shall, however, be at liberty to avail the remedy available under Section 70(13) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 before the Court of competent jurisdiction, subject to law.

ANNOUNCED.

(Jamil)

JUDGE

(S.B.) Hon’ble Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer.

(S.B.) Hon’ble Justice Syed Mudasser Ameer.