2002 (10) TMI 555 - HC - Customs

Writ - Jurisdiction - Anti-dumping - Metallurgical coke - Maintainability - Technological aspects

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification No. 17/2001 as amended by Notification No. 44/2001 under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to clear metallurgical coke at a concessional customs duty rate.
3. Jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution.
4. Pendency of a similar matter in the Supreme Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Notification No. 17/2001 as amended by Notification No. 44/2001 under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing hot-rolled coils and plates, challenged the notification dated 1-3-2001, as amended on 26-4-2001, arguing it was ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the notification discriminated against manufacturers of pig iron or steel based on the process adopted, favoring those using the blast furnace over those using the COREX process. The petitioner argued that both processes were similar, supported by opinions from the Department of Metallurgy, Institute of Science, Bangalore, and MECON Limited. The court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's eligibility for the concessional rate by evaluating the technological similarities between the COREX and blast furnace processes.

2. Entitlement of the petitioner to clear metallurgical coke at a concessional customs duty rate:
The petitioner sought a directive to allow the clearance of metallurgical coke at a concessional customs duty rate of 5% ad valorem, similar to manufacturers using the blast furnace process. The petitioner argued that they were similarly situated to other manufacturers using the blast furnace and thus entitled to the same benefits. The court recognized the petitioner's claim but deferred the final decision to the appropriate authority, directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation for reconsideration by the respondents.

3. Jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court under Article 226(2) of the Constitution:
The respondents contested the jurisdiction of the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the consignments were from the ports of Chennai and Goa, and no part of the cause of action arose within Karnataka. The court, however, held that the petitioner's manufacturing unit was in Karnataka, and the usage of imported coke in Karnataka constituted a part of the cause of action. The court cited various judgments, including Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Others, to support its decision that it had the necessary jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

4. Pendency of a similar matter in the Supreme Court:
The respondents argued that a similar matter was pending in the Supreme Court, and therefore, the current petition should be kept in abeyance. The court noted that it had already granted a conditional interim order and had heard the matter for final disposal. Given these developments, the court decided to proceed with the case on its merits rather than postponing the hearing.

Conclusion:
The court partly allowed the petition, directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation with the respondents, who were instructed to reconsider the petitioner's eligibility for the concessional customs duty rate. The court maintained the interim order, ensuring that the bank guarantee remained in place until a final decision was made. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the matter, leaving the final determination to the appropriate authority.