Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether interim relief should be granted to restrain recovery and permit clearance of imported solar cells and modules without payment of safeguard duty pending final hearing.
Analysis: The challenge at this stage was directed against the safeguard-duty notification and the final findings on which it was based. The Court noted that the Director General had considered the relevant statutory factors, including increase in imports in absolute and relative terms, domestic market share, sales, production, capacity utilisation, profitability, inventory, price undercutting, and the causal link between increased imports and serious injury. The Court also took into account that the petitioner had participated in the investigation despite being aware of the likely levy, and that the power purchase arrangement contained a change-in-law mechanism that protected the petitioner against financial prejudice. On balance, the Court found that continuance of interim protection would defeat the object of the safeguard measure and would cause prejudice to the domestic industry.
Conclusion: Interim relief was refused and the stay application was dismissed.