2024 (10) TMI 1556 - HC - Customs

Petition Dismissed: Court Declines to Interfere in Ongoing Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation, Denies Interim Relief.

Epigral Limited & Anr. Versus Union of India & Ors.

The HC dismissed the petition challenging the imposition of provisional duty under the Customs Tariff Rules as premature, emphasizing non-interference in ... Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on the PVC Suspension Resins - petitioner is an end user of PVC Suspension Resins which is the product under consideration in the investigation initiated - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute between the parties that respondent No. 3 is in process of the investigation as contemplated under Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules 1995 and the contentions raised by the petitioner is at premature stage which would jeopardize the entire process initiated by the respondent No. 3. We are therefore of the opinion that we would not like to interfere at this stage on merits of the matter. The petition therefore being premature is accordingly dismissed at this stage. Issues:1. Petition challenging the imposition of provisional duty under Customs Tariff Rules.2. Petition seeking exclusion of imported product from consideration under Anti-Dumping Duty rules.3. Interim reliefs requested for staying further proceedings.Analysis:The petition before the High Court challenged the imposition of provisional duty under the Customs Tariff Rules. The petitioner sought a writ to prohibit the authorities from levying such duty or, alternatively, to direct them to consider representations before imposing any duty. Additionally, the petitioner requested setting aside an order that did not exclude the imported product, urging reconsideration of the decision. The Court noted the petitioner's status as an end user of the product under investigation for Anti-Dumping Duty. The petitioner participated in meetings and submitted objections, alleging that their product should not be included in the scope of consideration due to its use as a raw material. However, the Court refrained from delving into the specifics to avoid prejudicing the ongoing investigation by the authority. The petitioner contended that objections were not adequately addressed, leading to the unilateral declaration of the product scope. The Court acknowledged the premature nature of the petition, emphasizing that intervening at this stage could disrupt the investigative process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as premature, with no costs imposed.The petitioner also sought interim reliefs to stay further proceedings related to specific notifications. These requests were made pending the admission, hearing, and final disposal of the main petition challenging the imposition of duties. The Court did not address these interim reliefs in detail but dismissed the main petition as premature, indicating that the interim reliefs were not granted. The Court's decision was based on the understanding that intervening prematurely in the investigative process could jeopardize the authority's proceedings under the Anti-Dumping Duty rules. The judges declined to delve into the merits of the matter at that stage, opting to dismiss the petition without imposing any costs. The legal representatives for both parties presented arguments regarding the interpretation of certain communications and the petitioner's ability to raise objections during the investigation. The Court considered these arguments but ultimately decided not to interfere due to the premature nature of the petition.