TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the final finding recommending safeguard duty and the notification imposing safeguard duty were liable to be struck down in judicial review; (ii) whether the notification issued during the subsistence of the Orissa High Court's interim injunction could operate retrospectively or only from the date on which that injunction was stayed by the Supreme Court; (iii) whether assessments and bills of entry covered by the period when the injunction was in force could sustain the levy of safeguard duty.
Issue (i): Whether the final finding recommending safeguard duty and the notification imposing safeguard duty were liable to be struck down in judicial review.
Analysis: Section 8B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 empowers the Central Government to impose safeguard duty if, after enquiry, it is satisfied that imports are entering in increased quantities and under conditions causing or threatening serious injury to domestic industry. The statutory scheme also recognises provisional and final determination, and Rule 12 of the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997 governs the enquiry and assessment process. The Court held that the competent authority had considered the relevant material, including the increase in imports, domestic demand, production data, capacity utilisation and the need to protect domestic industry. In writ jurisdiction, the Court would not sit as an appellate authority over such a determination unless the action was shown to be without authority, arbitrary or irrational. No such infirmity was established.
Conclusion: The challenge to the final finding and the safeguard notification on merits was rejected and the petitioners failed on this issue.
Issue (ii): Whether the notification issued during the subsistence of the Orissa High Court's interim injunction could operate retrospectively or only from the date on which that injunction was stayed by the Supreme Court.
Analysis: The notification was issued while the interim injunction was in force, so it could not operate during that period. However, the stay granted by the Supreme Court had the effect of rendering the prohibitory order inoperative from the date of the stay, without wiping out the order from existence. The notification, being legislative in character, became operative once the restraint was stayed. The Central Government was not required to issue a fresh notification. The legal effect was therefore temporal: inoperative during the injunction period and effective thereafter from the date of stay.
Conclusion: The notification was held to be operative only from 10.09.2018, the date of stay of the injunction, and not for the period when the injunction subsisted.
Issue (iii): Whether assessments and bills of entry covered by the period when the injunction was in force could sustain the levy of safeguard duty.
Analysis: Bills of entry and assessments made during the subsistence of the injunction were contrary to the restraint then operating and could not validly fasten safeguard duty for that period. The Court distinguished such assessments from those made after the stay, when the notification had become operative. Accordingly, entries and final assessments falling within the injunction period were liable to be interfered with, whereas assessments made after the stay were not.
Conclusion: The assessments and bills of entry pertaining to the injunction period were set aside, while those falling after the stay were left undisturbed.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the safeguard-duty regime failed on merits, but relief was granted for levy and assessment actions taken during the subsistence of the interim injunction, with the notification held effective only from the date the injunction was stayed.
Ratio Decidendi: A subordinate legislative levy issued in breach of an interim judicial restraint does not operate during the restraint period, but it becomes effective from the date the restraint is stayed, and judicial review of safeguard-duty determinations remains confined to legality, rationality and statutory compliance.
TaxTMI 
