The Supreme Court in a recent order has set at rest the controversy regarding the jurisdiction of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC). It will also prevent MRTPC from treading on the toes of other law enforcing agencies.
In the Haridas Exports vs All India Float Glass Manufacturers case, reported in 2002(145)ELT 241(SC), the apex court ruled that the MRTP Act did not envisage any action towards anti-dumping and it was in the domain of the Customs Act.
When the goods are dumped, they are highly undervalued. But it is impossible to prove since the comparison has to be only with the goods of the same country.
Because all of them are undervalued, no under-valuation can be established. This is where the anti-dumping law comes in the picture.
Under the provisions of Sections 9A to 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, a designated authority on anti-dumping has been appointed, which can conduct probe on receipt of a complaint or suo motu relating to dumping of goods by a foreign company.
The MRTP Act is a pro-competition law meant to check concentration of economic power to the common detriment, to control monopolies and to prohibit restrictive trade practices.
But can an aggrieved person go to the designated authority and, on not getting a favourable order, also to MRTPC?
When the case came to the Supreme Court, it became a matter of determining the jurisdiction between the MRTP Act and anti-dumping rules under the Customs Tariff Act.
According to the apex court, the two laws have different situations to consider. The situations are similar, but not the same.
Orders can be passed under the Customs Act, the Customs Tariff Act, the Import-Export Control Act prohibiting or imposing an anti-dumping duty on the goods yet to be imported. But the MRTP Act applies only after the goods have been imported.
A cartel or sale of goods, which causes injury after they are imported, can fall in the jurisdiction of the MRTP Act, but not before they are imported.
