2025 (4) TMI 121 - HC - Customs

Levy of ADD in respect of imports of Styrene Butadiene Rubber of 1500 and 1700 series from the European Union Korea RP and Thailand - HELD THAT - In terms of the submissions made before the Supreme Court ld. Counsel for the domestic industry being Respondent No. 2 in the present case submits that it has already written to the Government that it does not press its rights in terms of the recommendation given by the Designated Authority - In effect therefore the domestic industry no longer presses for imposition of ADD. Accordingly the impugned OM is no longer challenged by the domestic industry. The entire matter has thus become infructuous. However since the subject goods were provisionally released by the CESTAT subject to certain conditions the said assessment orders would have to now be finalised bearing in mind that ADD is no longer insisted upon by the domestic industry. Appeal disposed off.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

1. Whether the Office Memorandum (OM) issued by the Central Government, which decided not to impose Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) despite the recommendation of the Designated Authority (DA), can be challenged before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

2. The impact of the domestic industry's decision not to press for the imposition of ADD on the continuation of the appeal against the OM.

3. The procedural and substantive implications of the provisional assessment of imports pending the final decision by the Central Government on the imposition of ADD.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Challenge to the Office Memorandum before CESTAT

The relevant legal framework involves Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for appeals to the High Court against the orders of CESTAT. The CESTAT had set aside the OM issued by the Central Government, which decided not to impose ADD on the import of Styrene Butadiene Rubber from certain countries, despite the DA's recommendation.

The Court considered whether such an OM is capable of being challenged before CESTAT. It was noted that similar petitions were filed before the Supreme Court regarding other products, and the Supreme Court dismissed those petitions as infructuous after the domestic industries involved decided not to pursue their claims based on the DA's recommendations.

The Court's reasoning highlights the procedural propriety of challenging OMs and the jurisdiction of CESTAT in such matters. The key evidence includes the DA's recommendation and the Central Government's subsequent decision not to impose ADD.

The application of law to facts involved assessing the procedural steps taken by the DA and the Central Government, and the role of CESTAT in reviewing such decisions. Competing arguments included the Central Government's discretion in accepting or rejecting DA's recommendations versus the procedural rights of domestic industries to challenge such decisions.

2. Impact of Domestic Industry's Decision

The domestic industry, represented by Respondent No. 2, decided not to press for the imposition of ADD, which rendered the appeal against the OM infructuous. The Court noted that the domestic industry's decision effectively nullified the challenge to the OM, as there was no longer a dispute over the imposition of ADD.

The Court's interpretation emphasized the significance of the domestic industry's stance in determining the continuation of legal proceedings. The key finding was that the domestic industry's withdrawal of its claim led to the dismissal of the appeal as infructuous.

3. Provisional Assessment of Imports

The Court addressed the procedural implications of the provisional assessment of imports pending the Central Government's final decision on ADD. The CESTAT had permitted provisional assessment and release of goods, following the interim order in a related case, Union of India v. Jubilant Ingrevia Limited.

The Court's reasoning aligned with the interim measures adopted in similar cases, ensuring that importers were notified of the potential imposition of ADD, without creating equities in favor of the domestic industry. The application of law involved balancing the procedural rights of importers with the pending decision on ADD.

The Court concluded that the provisional assessments should be finalized, considering the domestic industry's decision not to pursue ADD, and any bonds furnished should be released accordingly.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court preserved the following significant legal reasoning:

"The entire matter has thus become infructuous. However, since the subject goods were provisionally released by the CESTAT subject to certain conditions, the said assessment orders would have to now be finalized bearing in mind that ADD is no longer insisted upon by the domestic industry."

Core principles established include the procedural propriety of challenging OMs before CESTAT and the impact of the domestic industry's decisions on the continuation of legal proceedings. The final determination was that the appeal was disposed of as infructuous, and the legal issues raised were kept open for future adjudication in an appropriate case.

← Previous Next →