Delhi HC dismisses Writ as Domestic Industry Drops Anti-Dumping Duty Demand

Union of India Vs Apcotex Industries Limited (Delhi High Court)

Delhi High Court disposed of writ petitions as domestic industry no longer presses for imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty [ADD]. Thus, writ petitions are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

Facts- The Respondents in these petitions who are stated to be the domestic industry, had filed their respective applications before the Directorate General of Trade Remedies praying for imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty in terms of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 in respect of various products.

Notably, the definitive ADD was then imposed vide respective Customs notifications issued in various cases. After the imposition of the ADD, a sunset review was undertaken by the Designated Authority, DGTR in order to examine the effect of the imposition of ADD. Final findings were rendered in the sunset review, wherein the Designated Authority, DGTR came to the conclusion that the ADD deserves to be continued. However, the Central Government, on this occasion, did not accept the recommendations of the DGTR and hence the ADD was set aside in the respective cases.

Conclusion- Held that the domestic industry no longer presses for imposition of ADD. The respective Office Memorandums, therefore, are no longer challenged by the domestic industry. The question of law raised by the Union of India e., as to whether CESTAT has jurisdiction to set aside an Office Memorandum or not, would therefore become moot in this background. Under these facts and circumstances, the stand of the Respondents, i.e., the domestic industry is accepted. The present writ petitions are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, in view of the stand of the Respondents-domestic industry.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Respondents in these petitions who are stated to be the domestic industry, had filed their respective applications before the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (hereinafter “DGTR”) praying for imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (hereinafter “ADD”) in terms of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter “the Act”) and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 in respect of the following products:

3. Findings were issued in the respective applications by the Designated Authority, DGTR recommending imposition of provisional ADD on the concerned import of goods from certain countries. Thereafter, final findings were also notified recommending imposition of ADD. The definitive ADD was then imposed vide respective Customs notifications issued in various cases.

4. After the imposition of the ADD, a sunset review was undertaken by the Designated Authority, DGTR in order to examine the effect of the imposition of ADD. Final findings were rendered in the sunset review, wherein the Designated Authority, DGTR came to the conclusion that the ADD deserves to be continued.

5. However, the Central Government, on this occasion, did not accept the recommendations of the DGTR and hence the ADD was set aside in the respective cases. The various Office Memorandums issued by the Central Government not to continue the ADD, were challenged before Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter “CESTAT”) which then set aside the said Office Memorandums.

6. The challenge in these petitions, is to the respective orders of CESTAT, which set aside the respective Office Memorandums, by which the ADD was not accepted by the Central Government.

7. The question of law that has been raised by the Union of India in these cases is whether an Office Memorandum is capable of being assailed before CESTAT.

8. It is submitted by the ld. Counsels for the parties today that similar petitions in respect of certain other products were filed by the Union of India before the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the order passed by CESTAT setting aside the respective Office Memorandums.

9. In that case, being SLP (C) Diary No. 31452/2023 titled as Union of India vs. Plastics Machinery Manufacturers Association of India through its Director and Ors., the Supreme Court passed the following order on 9th December, 2024:

“It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the domestic industries have given up their right in terms of the recommendation made by the designated authority, as well as, their claims on the basis of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

In view of the statement made, the special leave petition is dismissed as infructuous.”

10.In terms of the submissions made before the Supreme Court, ld. Counsel for the domestic industries who are the Respondents in these cases, submit that they have already written to the Government that they do not press their rights in terms of the recommendation given by the Designated Authority, DGTR.

11. In effect thereof, the domestic industry no longer presses for imposition of ADD. The respective Office Memorandums, therefore, are no longer challenged by the domestic industry.

12. The question of law raised by the Union of India e., as to whether CESTAT has jurisdiction to set aside an Office Memorandum or not, would therefore become moot in this background.

13. Under these facts and circumstances, the stand of the Respondents, i.e., the domestic industry is accepted. The present writ petitions are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, in view of the stand of the Respondents-domestic industry.

14. The legal issues raised in these petitions are, however, kept open for adjudication in an appropriate case.

15. The interim orders in all these matters, if any, shall stand vacated.