2022 (3) TMI 420 - HC - Customs

Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) - petition challenged primarily on the ground that even before a final order is passed, pursuant to the issuance of the show cause notice dated 15.07.2017, the writ petition at the instance of the writ petitioner is not maintainable - whether the appellant has power to issue a subsequent notification dated 05.01.2015, after the period of validity of the earlier notification dated 16.12.2010 lapsed on the expiry of five years on 07.12.2014? - HELD THAT - This issue is no longer res integra as it was decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VERSUS M/S. KUMHO PETROCHEMICALS COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER 2017 (6) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that the notification extending anti-dumping duty by five years i.e., upto January 1, 2014 was in the nature of temporary legislation and validity thereof could be extended, in exercise of powers contained in second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9A of the Act only before January 1, 2014. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Validity of show cause notice for Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) after the lapse of the notification period.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Writ Appeal:
The first respondent filed an intra-court appeal challenging the order allowing the writ petition in W.P. No. 22770 of 2017, focusing on the order dated 06.10.2017 in WP No. 22770 of 2017.

2. Contentions of the Parties:
The first respondent sought to quash a show cause notice for ADD issued after the expiry of the notification period, relying on Delhi High Court and Supreme Court judgments. The respondents opposed the writ petition's maintainability before a final order.

3. Judgment of the Learned Single Judge:
The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, citing settled legal issues from the Supreme Court regarding the ADD notification's extension beyond the expiry date. The Judge set aside the ADD demands for specific periods and directed participation in the adjudication process for other issues.

4. Appeal and Arguments:
The appellant contested the order, arguing that the Delhi High Court's decision was dissented by a Division Bench of the same court. The appellant claimed that the notification extension did not require issuance before the expiry date. The appellant also challenged the writ petition's maintainability.

5. Supreme Court Precedent and Decision:
The issue revolved around the power to issue subsequent notifications after the expiry of the initial notification period. The Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited clarified this issue, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision. The Court upheld the High Court's interpretation of the relevant provisions.

6. Final Decision:
Considering the Supreme Court's ruling, the challenge to the order in W.P. No. 22770 of 2017 failed. The writ appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The case was closed, affirming the learned Judge's decision.

This detailed analysis covers the legal nuances, arguments, judgments, and the final decision in the case concerning the validity of the show cause notice for Anti-Dumping Duty.