TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Domestic industry withdraws anti-dumping duty challenge making CESTAT jurisdiction question moot under Section 9A</h1> <h3>Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Finance Sij Acroni DOO. Versus M/s Apcotex Industries Limited, Association Of Chloromethanes Manufacturers, Forum For Acrylic Fibre Manufacturer Forum (FAFM), M/s. SI Group India Private Limited, Jubliant Ingrevia Limited, M/s. Deepak Phenolics Limited, M/s. Gujrat State Fertilisers And Chemicals Ltd, M/s. Gujrat State Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd., M/s. Ui Vr Pvt Ltd, M/s. Gujrat Fluorochemicals Limited, Deepak Phenolics Ltd., Jindal Stainless Hisar Limited JSHL, M/s. Jindal Stainless Limited (JSL), M/s. IG Petrochemicals Limited, M/s. Thirumal Chemicals Limited, M/s. Owens Corning India Private Limited.</h3> Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Finance Sij Acroni DOO. Versus M/s Apcotex Industries Limited, Association Of Chloromethanes Manufacturers, ... The Court considered a series of petitions challenging the setting aside of Office Memorandums by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which had not been accepted by the Central Government. The core legal question raised was whether an Office Memorandum could be challenged before CESTAT. However, due to developments where the domestic industries withdrew their support for the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD), the petitions were rendered infructuous, and the legal issues were kept open for future adjudication.The Respondents, domestic industries, had initially sought the imposition of ADD through applications to the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR). The DGTR recommended provisional and final ADD, which was imposed through Customs notifications. Subsequently, a sunset review was conducted, and the DGTR recommended continuing the ADD. However, the Central Government did not accept these recommendations, leading to challenges before CESTAT, which set aside the Office Memorandums.In a related case before the Supreme Court, the domestic industries indicated they no longer pressed for the imposition of ADD, rendering the petitions before the High Court infructuous. Consequently, the Court accepted the stand of the Respondents, disposing of the writ petitions. The legal issues raised were kept open for future adjudication, and any interim orders were vacated.Overall, the judgment addressed the challenge to the setting aside of Office Memorandums by CESTAT, which became moot due to the withdrawal of support by the domestic industries for the imposition of ADD. The Court acknowledged the developments and disposed of the petitions while keeping the legal issues open for consideration in future cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
