Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court upholds Central Govt's discretion in anti-dumping duty decision

        ALEMBIC LTD Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & 9

        ALEMBIC LTD Versus UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & 9 - 2013 (291) E.L.T. 327 (Guj.) Issues Involved:
        1. Imposition of Anti-dumping duty.
        2. Binding nature of the Designated Authority's recommendations.
        3. Public interest considerations in imposing Anti-dumping duty.
        4. Judicial review of the Central Government's decision.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Imposition of Anti-dumping Duty:
        The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Ministry of Finance to accept the recommendations of the Designated Authority (DA) and the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers to impose Anti-dumping duty on imports of Penicillin-G and 6-Amino Penicillin Acid (6-APA) from China PR and Mexico. The DA had issued preliminary findings recommending the imposition of provisional Anti-dumping duty, followed by final findings supporting the imposition of such duty. However, the Central Government did not impose the duty despite these recommendations, leading the petitioner to file a fresh petition.

        2. Binding Nature of the Designated Authority's Recommendations:
        The DA concluded that there was sufficient justification for imposing Anti-dumping duty, establishing a causal link between dumped imports and injury to the domestic industry. The DA recommended the imposition of definitive Anti-dumping duty. The petitioner argued that the Central Government was required to impose the duty as per Rule 18 of the Rules within three months of the DA's final findings. However, the Central Government, citing numerous representations and broader public interest considerations, decided not to impose the duty.

        3. Public Interest Considerations in Imposing Anti-dumping Duty:
        The Central Government considered several factors before deciding against the imposition of Anti-dumping duty:
        - Insufficient domestic supply of the subject goods to meet domestic demand.
        - Likely impact on the price of formulations and the burden on antibiotic manufacturers.
        - Disproportionate impact on a larger community of downstream users and consumers.
        - Potential significant increase in the prices of life-saving drugs.
        - Risk of Chinese exporters exporting value-added APIs to India, potentially closing many manufacturing units of antibiotics in India.
        - The adverse effect on small and medium enterprises (SMEs) converting intermediates into formulations.

        The Central Government emphasized that the imposition of Anti-dumping duty would not be in the larger public interest, considering the significant disadvantages to consumers and the potential increase in the prices of essential medicines.

        4. Judicial Review of the Central Government's Decision:
        The Court examined whether the recommendations of the DA were binding on the Central Government and whether the Central Government had sufficient reasons to refuse the imposition of Anti-dumping duty. It was concluded that the recommendations of the DA are not binding on the Central Government. The Central Government has discretionary powers under Rule 18 of the Rules to impose or not impose Anti-dumping duty, even when recommended by the DA. The Court noted that the Central Government's decision was based on broader public interest considerations, which were additional to the factors considered by the DA. The Court held that the Central Government's decision was not arbitrary and was within its discretionary powers.

        Conclusion:
        The Court dismissed the petition, concluding that the Central Government's decision not to impose Anti-dumping duty was based on valid public interest considerations and was within its discretionary powers. The recommendations of the DA are not binding on the Central Government, and the decision to impose Anti-dumping duty involves broader considerations beyond the DA's findings. The Court emphasized judicial restraint in matters involving economic and fiscal regulatory measures, allowing the executive greater latitude in policy implementation.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found