Interim relief against expired safeguard duty notification refused after balance of convenience, delay, and non-joinder concerns

Interim relief in a writ challenge to a safeguard duty notification was refused because the interim arrangement would, in substance, recreate a safeguard duty after the impugned notification had already expired. Applying the settled tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the Court found no basis to order provisional import on safeguard duty terms with bonds. It also relied on delay in approaching the Court, non-joinder of affected importers, practical difficulty in enforcing conditions against unimpleaded parties, and the risk of unjust enrichment and market distortion. The request for provisional relief was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim relief could be granted directing import of the goods on provisional safeguard duty basis and requiring bonds, pending the writ petition challenging the notification restricting safeguard duty to one year.

Analysis: Interim relief was examined on the settled parameters of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The notification impugned in the petition had already expired and, therefore, no safeguard duty was then being levied. Granting the requested interim arrangement would in substance impose safeguard duty without final adjudication and would operate after the notification had died its natural death. The Court also noted delay in approaching the Court, non-joinder of the importers affected by the proposed order, the practical impossibility of implementing conditions against unimpleaded persons and the likelihood of unjust enrichment and distortion of the market if provisional duty were imposed.

Conclusion: Interim relief was not warranted and the request was rejected.

---