2025 (4) TMI 122 - HC - Customs

CESTAT's Authority to Review Anti-Dumping Duty Rejections Remains Unresolved as Petitioners Withdraw Interest

Union Of India, Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd., Versus Association Of Synthetic Fibre Industry, Sterlite Technologies Ltd., M/s. Automotive Typre Manufacturers Association, M/s. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd & Anr., M/s. Reliance Industries Limited, M/s Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association & Anr.

The HC disposed of petitions challenging CESTAT's jurisdiction to set aside Central Government Office Memoranda that rejected DGTR recommendations for ... Challenge to Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government, which sets aside the recommendations of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) regarding the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) - HELD THAT:- In terms of the submissions made before the Supreme Court, ld. Counsel for the domestic industries who are the Respondents in these cases, submit that they have already written to the Government that they do not press their rights in terms of the recommendation given by the Designated Authority, DGTR. In effect therefore, the domestic industry no longer presses for imposition of ADD. The respective Office Memoranda, therefore, are no longer challenged by the domestic industry and the CESTAT order is rendered infructuous. Under these facts and circumstances, the stand of the Respondents, i.e., the domestic industry is accepted. The present writ petitions are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, in view of the stand of the Respondents domestic industry. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal question considered in this judgment is whether an Office Memorandum issued by the Central Government, which sets aside the recommendations of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) regarding the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD), can be challenged before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Additionally, the Court considered the implications of the domestic industry's decision not to pursue their rights based on the DGTR's recommendations.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework involves the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. These provide the basis for the imposition of ADD on imported goods to protect domestic industries from unfair trade practices. The DGTR is responsible for investigating and recommending the imposition of ADD, while the Central Government has the final authority to accept or reject these recommendations.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Court noted that the DGTR had recommended the imposition of ADD on various products from specific countries. However, the Central Government chose not to accept these recommendations, issuing Office Memoranda to this effect. These memoranda were subsequently challenged before CESTAT, which set them aside. The petitions in question challenged CESTAT's jurisdiction to set aside such memoranda.Key Evidence and FindingsEvidence presented included the DGTR's recommendations for ADD, the Central Government's Office Memoranda rejecting these recommendations, and the CESTAT's orders setting aside the memoranda. The domestic industry, initially advocating for ADD, later communicated to the government that they no longer pressed for these duties, rendering their challenge to the Office Memoranda moot.Application of Law to FactsThe Court applied the relevant legal provisions to the facts, noting that the domestic industry's withdrawal of their claims effectively nullified the need for a determination on the jurisdictional question regarding CESTAT's authority to set aside Office Memoranda. As a result, the legal issues became moot, and the petitions were rendered infructuous.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe primary competing argument was whether CESTAT had jurisdiction to challenge the Office Memoranda. However, given the domestic industry's decision not to pursue the matter further, the Court did not need to resolve this issue. The Court acknowledged the Union of India's position but did not make a definitive ruling on the jurisdictional question, leaving it open for future adjudication.ConclusionsThe Court concluded that the petitions were infructuous due to the domestic industry's decision not to press for ADD based on the DGTR's recommendations. Consequently, the question of CESTAT's jurisdiction to set aside the Office Memoranda was left unresolved, with the Court noting that this legal issue remains open for consideration in a future case.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court's significant holding was that the petitions were rendered infructuous by the domestic industry's decision not to pursue ADD. The Court stated: 'The present writ petitions are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous, in view of the stand of the Respondents domestic industry.' The Court also emphasized that the legal issues raised, particularly concerning CESTAT's jurisdiction, remain open for future adjudication.The core principle established is that the jurisdictional question of whether CESTAT can set aside an Office Memorandum is not resolved in this judgment and will require consideration in an appropriate future case. The Court vacated all interim orders related to these matters, effectively concluding the current proceedings without a substantive ruling on the jurisdictional question.