Apcotex Anti-Dumping Duty Dispute: Delhi HC Disposes Case after Domestic Industry Withdraws Claim for Duty Imposition [Read Order]

In a notable ruling, the Delhi High Court disposed of multiple Writ Petitions pertaining to the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD), ruling that the case has become infructuous following the domestic industry’s withdrawal of its demand for duty imposition.

A series of petitions had been filed by the Union of India, challenging the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which earlier set aside Office Memorandums issued by the Central Government rejecting the continuation of ADD on various products.

Read More: Finance Ministry Imposes Anti-Dumping Duty on Epichlorohydrin Imports from China, Korea, and Thailand for 5 Years

The case originated when Apcotex Industries Limited, along with other domestic manufacturers, petitioned the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, seeking Anti-Dumping Duty on numerous products including Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber, Methylene Chloride, Acrylic Fibre etc., all of which were imported from countries around the globe.

Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here

The DGTR had recommended provisional ADD, which was later confirmed through final findings leading to a definitive duty effectuated through Customs notification. However, after conducting a sunset review, the DGTR recommended a continuation of ADD, citing a likelihood of continued dumping and injury to the domestic industry.

Read More: Finance Ministry Amends to Import Duty Exemption Clause for Personal Use Goods [Read Notification]

The Central Government had then issued Office Memorandums not to continue the ADD which were successfully challenged before the CESTAT which proceeded to set aside the Office Memorandum and reinstating the recommendation of the DGTR.

Anurag Ojha, Subham Kumar, Dipak Raj, R. Venkat Prabhat, Abhinav M. Goel, Kamna Behrani and Ansh Kalra appearing for the Union of India contended that the CESTAT raised the primary contention that whether CESTAT possessed the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate upon an Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government in an Anti-Dumping Duty matter.

Meanwhile, the Respondent domestic Industry were represented by Abhay Chattopadhyay, Sarthak Yadav, Sanjay Notani, Ambarish Sathianathan, Harika Bakaraju, Rajesh Sharma and  Nikhil Sharma proceeded to withdraw their claim for the continuation of ADD, effectively making the case moot.

Read More: Export Duty Not Payable on Indian Refractory Mortar: CESTAT

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma referenced the Supreme Court decision in Union of India vs. Plastics Machinery Manufacturers Association of India through its Director and Ors., (2023) where the matter was termed infructuous since the domestic industries gave up their claims.

The Bench observed that the domestic industry no longer pressed for the imposition of ADD for which they had informed the Government in writing. In such an event, the question of law raised by the Union of India i.e., as to whether CESTAT has jurisdiction to set aside an Office Memorandum or not would become moot, and the writ petitions herein - infructuous.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates