Writ maintainable against safeguard duty levy; interim clearance allowed with bank guarantee and undertaking pending final decision.

A writ petition challenging levy of safeguard duty was held maintainable where the dispute went to the very jurisdiction of the authorities and turned on interpretation of the notification rather than disputed facts; availability of statutory remedies for other bills of entry did not bar writ jurisdiction. Interim protection was also granted because the notification excluded certain seamless pipes and tubes and the imported goods appeared to fall within the excluded entries, creating a prima facie case. Relief was balanced against revenue interests by permitting clearance on furnishing a bank guarantee for part of the duty and an undertaking to pay the balance with interest if the petition failed, while the Board was asked to consider the pending representations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition challenging levy of safeguard duty was maintainable despite availability of statutory remedies. (ii) Whether interim relief against levy and clearance of the imported goods should be granted.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition challenging levy of safeguard duty was maintainable despite availability of statutory remedies.

Analysis: The challenge went to the very jurisdiction of the authorities to levy safeguard duty on the imported goods. The controversy turned on interpretation of the notification issued for imposition of safeguard duty and did not involve disputed questions of fact. Mere availment of statutory remedies in respect of other bills of entry did not bar invocation of writ jurisdiction where the levy itself was alleged to be without authority of law.

Conclusion: The petition was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether interim relief against levy and clearance of the imported goods should be granted.

Analysis: The notification itself excluded certain categories of seamless pipes and tubes, and the domestic industry had stated that the goods of the description imported by the petitioner fell within the excluded entries. This furnished a prima facie case for interim protection. At the same time, the petitioner had already failed before the adjudicating authority and the appellate commissioner, so the relief had to be balanced to protect the revenue. The Court also considered the need to avoid repetitive litigation and found it expedient that the Board decide the representations.

Conclusion: Interim relief was granted permitting clearance of the goods on furnishing bank guarantee for part of the assessed duty and an undertaking for payment of the balance with interest if the petition ultimately failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was entertained, rule was issued, and interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioner while keeping the substantive controversy open and directing consideration of the pending representations by the Board.

---