2025 (4) TMI 192 - HC - Customs

Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) in respect of imports of Styrene Butadiene Rubber of 1500 and 1700 series from the European Union Korea RP and Thailand - 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 - HELD THAT - 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 primary issue considered was whether the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 28th October 2022, issued by the Central Government, which decided not to impose Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on imports of "Styrene Butadiene Rubber of 1500 and 1700 series" from the European Union, Korea RP, and Thailand, could be challenged before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

Additionally, the court considered whether the provisional assessment and release of goods should be maintained pending the final decision by the Central Government on the recommendations made by the Designated Authority (DA) for the imposition of ADD.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Legal Framework and Precedents

The case involved the interpretation of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Section 130, which governs the appeals process against decisions made by the CESTAT. The imposition of ADD is governed by the recommendations of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) and the subsequent acceptance or rejection by the Central Government. The court referenced previous cases, such as Jubilant Ingrevia Limited vs. Union of India, where similar OMs were set aside by the CESTAT and interim measures were ordered by the Delhi High Court.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning

The court noted that the CESTAT had set aside the OM based on the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in the Jubilant Ingrevia case. The court observed that the CESTAT had followed the interim order of the Delhi High Court, allowing for provisional assessment and release of goods while the Central Government reconsidered the DA's recommendations.

Key Evidence and Findings

The court highlighted that the DA had recommended the imposition of ADD, which was initially accepted by the Central Government in 2017 but was not accepted in the subsequent Sunset Review Investigation in 2022. The OM issued by the Central Government was challenged by the domestic industry, M/s Reliance Industries Limited, before the CESTAT.

Application of Law to Facts

The court applied the legal principles established in previous cases to determine that the OM could be challenged before the CESTAT. The court also applied the precedent of allowing provisional assessments to ensure that any future imposition of ADD could be applied retroactively if the Central Government decided to accept the DA's recommendations.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The court considered the arguments of the domestic industry, which initially sought the imposition of ADD, and the Central Government, which decided against it. The court also noted the position of the domestic industry, which later withdrew its challenge against the OM, rendering the matter infructuous. The court balanced the need to protect the domestic industry's interests with the legal framework governing ADD.

Conclusions

The court concluded that the OM could be challenged before the CESTAT and that provisional assessments should continue until the Central Government made a final decision. However, since the domestic industry no longer pressed for ADD, the matter was rendered infructuous, and the provisional assessments would need to be finalized without imposing ADD.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The court held that the OM issued by the Central Government could be challenged before the CESTAT. The court preserved the legal reasoning that provisional assessments could be made to protect the interests of the domestic industry, pending a final decision by the Central Government.

Core Principles Established

The court established that the CESTAT has the authority to set aside OMs issued by the Central Government regarding the imposition of ADD if such decisions are inconsistent with the DA's recommendations. The court also reinforced the principle that provisional assessments can be used as an interim measure to ensure that any future imposition of ADD can be applied retroactively.

Final Determinations on Each Issue

The court determined that the OM dated 28th October 2022 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Central Government for reconsideration of the DA's recommendations. However, since the domestic industry withdrew its challenge, the matter was deemed infructuous, and the provisional assessments were to be finalized without imposing ADD.

← Previous Next →