Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 IHC 244059
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: ALL PAKISTAN PAPER MERCHANTS vs FOP, etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2025 IHC 244059. In this matter between ALL PAKISTAN PAPER MERCHANTS and FOP, etc, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro) AUTHOR JUDGE: Former Honourable Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi DECISION DATE: 18-DEC-2025 CASE NO: Writ Petition-2789-2025 CITATION: 2025 IHC 244059 PARTIES: ALL PAKISTAN PAPER MERCHANTS VS FOP, etc LAW / SECTION: under section 2(j) of the Anti- W.P No. 2789/2025, W.P No.4926/2025 3 Dumping Act, 2015| under sections 3, 4, and 15 of the National Tariff Commission Ac| SUBJECT: Miscelleneous, Other REMARKS: Anti Dumping: Petitioners is association. Seeks restraining inquiry into imported bleached board for purpose Anti Dumpin. ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD. JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.
W.P. No.2789/2025 All Pakistan Paper Merchants Association Versus Federation of Pakistan, etc
W.P. No.4926/2025 All Pakistan Paper Merchants Association Versus Federation of Pakistan, etc
Petitioner by: M/S Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, and Wasi Ullah Khan Surrani, Advocates
Respondent No.2 by: M/S Waqas Amir & Abu Muhammad Azfar Advocates. Respondents No.3 & 4 by: M/S Rais Mahmood Ali & Saif Ullah Khan Advocates Mr. Sarfraz Rauaf, learned AAG.
Date of Hearing: 26.11.2025
KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO, J .:- Through this Judgment, I intend to decide the instant writ petition as well as W. P No. 4926/2025, as common question of law and facts is involve. Through Writ Petition No. 2789/2025, the petitioner prays as under:- “ (i) Set aside the impugned letter dated July 08, 2025, (ii) Restrain the respondent No.2 from conducting any further hearings till the time the respondent No.2 issued notices of hearing to all the interested parties including the petitioner and its members in accordance with the Act and the Rules,
W.P No. 2789/2025, W.P No.4926/2025 2
(iii) Direct the respondent No.2 to issue proper notices to all interested parties, including the petitioner, in accordance with the Act and the Rules and to ensure that all such interested parties are given a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing process before any final determination is made, (iv) Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and appropriate to the petitioner.” Through Writ Petition No. 4926/2025, the petitioner prays as under:- “ Under these circumstances, it is humbly prayed that petition may very kindly be accepted and the issuance of notice dated 14.10.2025, for hearing on 21.10.2025 as well as proceedings conducted by the members of commission without chairman be declared illegal, without lawful authority, unconstitutional and against the fundamental rights of the petitioner in violation of section 3,4 & 15 of the Anti -Dumping Duties Act, 2015, in the interest of justice and fair play. It is also prayed that the respondent No.1 may very graciously be directed to complete the National Tariff Commission through a specific notification for appointment of the chairman and respondent No.2 after its completion should hold the hearing in compliance of orders of Hon’ble High Court dated 08.10.2025, passed in ICA No. 326/2025, and in accordance with Rule 15 for the purpose of issuance of final determination. It is further prayed that till the decision of this petition, the issuance of hearing notice dated 14.10.2025 and proceeding whereof may very kindly be suspended, in the interest of justice and fair play.” Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and appropriate may also be awarded to the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2789/2025 submitted that the impugned letter dated. 08.07.2025 issued by respondent No.2 is illegal, unconstitutional, and contrary to the provisions of the relevant Act. It was contended that Rule 14 expressly guarantees all interested parties the right to submit their respective representations before respondent No .2, and that the impugned actions amount to a grave violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Learned counsel further argued that under section 2(j) of the Anti-
W.P No. 2789/2025, W.P No.4926/2025 3
Dumping Act, 2015 , an “interested party” explici tly includes an importer of the investigated product; however, despite such clear legal recognition, the petitioner and its members have been unlawfully excluded from meaningful participation in the ongoing proceedings. It was next contended that the illeg al issuance of the SEF and the denial of the right of hearing to the petitioner clearly disclose the predetermined mindset of respondent No.2. Learned counsel emphasized that respondent No.2, being a statutory body, is bound to act strictly in accordance w ith the enabling statute and the rules framed thereunder. It was argued that by issuing the SEF, respondent No.2 has prematurely and conclusively formed an opinion on the subject matter of the anti -circumvention investigation without affording the petition er and other interested parties an adequate opportunity of hearing. It was further submitted that issuance of the SEF during the pendency of proceedings before the Hon’ble Islamabad High Court has frustrated the lis already sub judice, particularly when th e petitioner represents hundreds of importers across Pakistan who are directly affected by the outcome of the investigation. Learned counsel further submitted that the hearing conducted by the National Tariff Commission on 21.10.2025 was not a hearing of a duly constituted Commission as envisaged under sections 3, 4, and 15 of the National Tariff Commission Act . It was argued that after conducting a lawful hearing, the Commission is required to proceed under section 15 for the purposes of final determinatio n under the Anti -Dumping Rules; however, in the absence of a legally constituted Commission, the entire proceedings conducted by the present members are illegal, void, and without lawful authority. 3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submit ted that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing strictly in accordance with Rule 14 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 2002 . It was contended that the petitioner failed to formally register its association with the National Tariff Commission of Paki stan and did not comply with the fundamental statutory requirements despite being provided an opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner has misused the process of law.
W.P No. 2789/2025, W.P No.4926/2025 4
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for t he parties and have perused the material available on record with their able assistance. 5. The central controversy involved in the instant petitions revolves around the petitioner’s assertion that the right of hearing, as envisaged under Rule 14 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 2002, was not afforded to him during the proceedings. According to the petitioner, the failure to provide such an opportunity vitiates the entire process, as Rule 14 mandates the commission to extend a fair and meaningful hearing to the concerned party. For proper appreciation, the relevant Rule 14 is reproduced as under. Hearing.--- (1) The commission shall, upon request by an interested party made within the time period provided for this purpose in the notice of initiation of a n investigation or a review or preliminary determination in an investigation, hold a hearing at which all interested parties may present information and arguments: Provided that such a hearing shall be hold not later than sixty days prior to the date pro posed for final determination of an investigation or conclusion of a review. (2) There shall be no obligation on any interested party to attend a hearing and failure to do so shall not be prejudicial to that interested party’s case. (3) A hearing shal l to the maximum extent possible be organized by the commission so as to take into account the convenience of the interested parties. (4) Interested parties intending to appear at a hearing shall notify the commission, the names of their representation and witnesses who shall appear at a hearing at least seven days before the date of the hearing. (5) A hearing shall be organized in such manner so as to ensure that all parties participating have an adequate opportunity to present their views. (6) The Secretary to the Commission shall maintain a record of the hearing, which subject to the requirement to protect confidential information under section 31 of the Act shall be promptly placed in the public file to be maintained under rule 7. (7) Interested parties shall also have the right, on justification, to present other information orally to the commission or during meetings with officials of the commission. Provided that such information shall only be taken into consideration by the commission if su ch information is confirmed in writing to the commission within ten days of the hearing and made available in other interested parties. Such information shall be deemed to have been made available to third parties upon it being
W.P No. 2789/2025, W.P No.4926/2025 5
placed by the commission in the public file to be maintained under Rule 7. (8) Interest parties may also request the commission for in - cameras hearing to provide confidential information as defined in Section 31 of the Act. The commission may on its discretion accept or reject the request for in -camera hearing depending upon the parties concerns about confidential information. (9) Not later than seven days before the specified date of a hearing any interested party may submit written arguments to the Commissions concerning any matter it considers relevant to an investigation or a review. Following the hearing, interested parties who participated in the hearing may, within ten days, submit further written arguments to the commission in response to arguments and information presented at the hearing.” 6. The aforesaid Rule commences with the term “Commission”, a term employed in the National Tariff Commission Act, 2013. Section 2(a) of the Act provides the definition of the commission by referring to Section 3; however, a plain reading of the statute reveals an apparent drafting error. Section 2(a) states that the commission is as defined under Section 3, yet Section 3 does not define the constitution of the commission; r ather, it merely affirms the continuation of the National Tariff Commission. The proper and substantive definition of the commission, including its composition, is in fact provided under Section 4 of the Act, which stipulates that the commission shall consist of five members appointed by the Federal Government in the prescribed manner, and one of those members shall be appointed as chairman. Since subsections 2, 3, and 4 of Section 4 are not relevant to the adjudication of the present controversy, no furthe r discussion on them is required. For the present purposes, it is also pertinent to refer to Section 15 of the Act, which governs the procedure and quorum of Commission meetings and is reproduced as under. “15. Meeting Procedure & Quorum.--- (1) Decisions and determinations of the Commission shall be taken by majority vote. (2) At least two members, one of whom shall be chairman shall constitute a quorum, provided that in case of quorum of two Members, the decision shall be taken by consensus.” 7. Perusal of Section 15 demonstrates that decisions and determinations of the commission must be made by a majority vote, and such a decision must comprise at
W.P No. 2789/2025, W.P No.4926/2025 6
least two members, one of whom must be the chairman. During the course of arguments, it was admitted by both sides that the chairman of the commission was de-notified pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, whereby the chairman of the National Tariff Commission was removed on 16.09.2025. It is further admitted that no new Commission has been constituted by the Federal Government in accordance with Section 3 of the Act, although the provision has been mistakenly cited as Section 4 in the Act. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the remaining members of the commission had, through an internal arrangement, designated one of them to act as chairman and, in purported compliance with the directions issued in ICA No. 326 of 2025, provided an opportunity of hearing to th e petitioner. Although the learned Division Bench disposed of the said Intra Court Appeal by directing the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing, the precise directions issued therein are reproduced as under. “ Since the matter is being resolve d gracefully and both the parties have arrived at consensus, therefore, both the Intra Court Appeals are being disposed -of with the direction to NTC to provide an opportunity of hearing to all the concerned by giving notice irrespective of the fact that th ey are parties to instant cases or not and complete all the required proceedings for final determination till 25.10.2025. However, it is clarified that in case of any grievance, the aggrieved shall be at liberty to avail the remedies available under the l aw against the final determination by the NTC.” 8. The direction issued to the NTC was to provide an opportunity for a hearing. Opportunity of hearing is only provided in Rule 14, and that should have been ordered by the commission in accordance with the quorum provided in Section 15 of the Act. A dmittedly, the hearing was not carried out in accordance with the spirit of Rules 14 & and 15 of the Acdt. Hence, the compliance of the directions passed in the aforesaid Intra Court Appeal has not been complied with its letter and spirit. The law provides that when something is to be done in a particular manner ; the same is to be done in that particular manner.
W.P No. 2789/2025, W.P No.4926/2025 7
9. In view of above, Writ Petition no. 2789-2025 and Writ Petition no. 4926-2025 are allowed and the im pugned letter s dated 08.07.2025 and 14.10.2025 are set aside. Respondents are directed to conduct the hearings of the petition /proceedings in complete observance of Section 4 & 15 of the Act, and Rule 14 & 15 of the Anti- Dumping Rules, 2022.
(KHADIM HUSSAIN SOOMRO) JUDGE
Announced in open court on the 18th day of December, 2025
JUDGE
S.Akhtar