TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vernment to issue such Notification in absence of any recommendatory exercise or recommendation by the designated authority, and without waiting for such recommendation; (iii) Whether it was obligatory on part of the Central Government to act and issue Notification rescinding the countervailing duty only after the recommendatory procedure laid down and the exercise contemplated in Sub section (6) of Section 9 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Rule 24 of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of countervailing duty on Subsidized Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, are followed; (iv) What is the import and purport of the words 'unless revoked earlier' occurring in sub-section (5) of section 9 of the Act. (v) Whether the ingredients 'continuation or recurrence of subsidization' and 'injury' are required to be determined and established apriori in review as per the First Proviso to sub-section (5) of section 9 of the Act and establishing such aspects is a condition precedent for issuance of the Notification of rescinding the countervailing duty by the Central Government? 1.1 Centripetal to the afore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and act under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the aforesaid Rules. Respondent no.2 plays the role of recommending and respondent no.1 Central Government is supposed to act on the basis of such recommendation. Director General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) is appointed under Rule 3 of the Customs Tariff Rules 1995, aforementioned. 3.1.3 Notification dated 07.09.2017 came to be issued by respondent no.1 imposing definitive countervailing duty on the imports of the aforesaid product from China PR. Notification regarding levy of countervailing duty was preceded by exercise of undertaking investigation, which was initiated and notified to interested parties including Government of China. Adequate opportunity was given to provide positive information on the aspects of subsidies, injury and causal links in terms of the Countervailing Rules. All interested parties including domestic producers, exporters, importers filed their submissions. These submissions were considered by respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 having ascertained and established positive subsidy margin as well as material injury to the domestic industry caused by said subsidised imports of Rolled Stainless Steel Strips/Coil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation dated 07.09.2017 was not required to be extended. In other words, the Petitioner stated that the domestic industry had not felt any need to discontinue the countervailing duty, but rather favoured the extension and continuation. It is stated that the neverthless, to the shock and surprise, respondent no.1 first suspended the countervailing duty as per the aforesaid Notification dated 01.02.2021 followed by its extension in subsequent notification dated 30.09.2021 till 31.01.2022. Respondent no.1 thereafter permanently withdrew the duty as per the impugned Notification dated 01.02.2022. 3.1.8 The Sunset Review was initiated on 08.10.2021 as aforesaid. It was despite the ongoing Sunset Review, investigation for extension of duty for further five years undertaken by respondent no.2 that respondent no.1 proceeded to rescind the duty. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent no.1 could not have acted in absence of and without waiting for the recommendations of the quasi-judicial authority-respondent no.2 to act unilaterally, when the respondent no.2 was already engaged in the investigation and inquiry to ascertain the aspects of continued subsidy and injury to the dome....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause injury to the domestic industry." 3.3.2 In Union of India Vs. Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd.[(2017) 351 ELT 65 (SC)], the Supreme Court stated, India is a signatory to the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization in 1994. Pursuant to this, it has implemented the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 referred to as the Anti-dumping Agreement (ADA), which is one of the Agreements that forms part of the WTO treaty. In terms of Article 18.4 the ADA, each Member country is required to ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the ADA. As a consequence, Sections 9A, Section 9AA, Section 9B and Section 9C of the Act were enacted. (para 39) Based on GATT & ASCM 3.4 The group of Articles in Part V captioned as 'Countervailing Measures' in the agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures(ASCM) may be noticed with relevance. Article 10 is about application of Article VI of GATT, 1994. It says that the members shall take necessary steps to ensure that the imposition of countervailing duty on any product of the territory of any Member imported into the terr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 is relevant, as it mentions about the duration and review of countervailing duty and undertakings. 3.4.4 The Article 21 of ASCM is reproduced, Duration and Review of Countervailing Duties and Undertakings 21.1 A countervailing duty shall remain in force only as long as and to the extent necessary to counteract subsidization which is causing injury. 21.2 The authorities shall review the need for the continued imposition of the duty, where warranted, on their own initiative or, provided that a reasonable period of time has elapsed since the imposition of the definitive countervailing duty, upon request by any interested party which submits positive information substantiating the need for a review. Interested parties shall have the right to request the authorities to examine whether the continued imposition of the duty is necessary to offset subsidization, whether the injury would be likely to continue or recur if the duty were removed or varied, or both. If, as a result of the review under this paragraph, the authorities determine that the countervailing duty is no longer warranted, it shall be terminated immediately. 21.3 Notwithstanding the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (a)..... (i).... (ii) ..... (iii) ..... (iv) ...... (b)....... (2) The Central Government may, pending the determination in accordance with the provisions of this section and the rules made thereunder of the amount of subsidy, impose a countervailing duty under this subsection not exceeding the amount of such subsidy as provisionally estimated by it and if such countervailing duty exceeds the subsidy as so determined, - (a) the Central Government shall, having regard to such determination and as soon as may be after such determination, reduce such countervailing duty; and (b) refund shall be made of so much of such countervailing duty which has been collected as is in excess of the countervailing duty as so reduced. (3)Subject to any rules made by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, the countervailing duty under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) shall not be levied unless it is determined that - (a) the subsidy relates to export performance; (b) the subsidy relates to the use of domestic goods over imported goods in the export article; or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....importation thereof under this section. (7A) The provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and the rules and regulations made thereunder, including those relating to the date for determination of rate of duty, assessment, non-levy, short levy, refunds, interest, appeals, offences and penalties shall, as far as may be, apply to the duty chargeable under this section as they apply in relation to duties leviable under that Act. (8) Every notification issued under this section shall, as soon as may be after it is issued, be laid before each House of Parliament. 3.5.2 Section 9-B says that there shall be no levy under section 9 or 9A in certain cases. It reads as under, "9-B No Levy under Section 9 or Section 9A in Certain Cases. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 9 or section 9A, - (a) no article shall be subjected to both countervailing duty and anti-dumping duty to compensate for the same situation of dumping or export subsidization; (b) the Central Government shall not levy any countervailing duty or antidumping duty - (i) under section 9 or section 9A by reasons of exemption of such articles from dutie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, such rules may provide for the manner in which any investigation may be made for the purposes of this section, the factors to which regard shall be at in any such investigation and for all matters connected with such investigation. Working of the provisions 3.6 As per the provisions of section 9(1) of the Act, any country pays or bestows, either directly or indirectly any subsidy upon manufacturer or production or exportation therefrom, of any article, in such eventuality, upon the importation of such article into India, the Central Government may after inquiry, impose countervailing duty. This duty is not to exceed the amount of such subsidy. It is significant to notice that the imposition of countervailing duty is after an inquiry as contemplated. 3.6.1 As per sub-section(2), the Central Government may, pending the determination in accordance with the determination of the amount of subsidy, etc., in accordance with the provisions of sections and rules, may impose provisional countervailing duty. Provisional imposition of countervailing duty is also upon undertaking an inquiry. The provision contains procedur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Rule 16 is termination of investigation, Rule 17 speaks of suspension or termination of investigation on acceptance of price undertaking. Rule 18 is about disclosure of information and Rule 19 states about final findings, Rule 20 is about levy of duty. Rule 21 is imposition of duty on non-discriminatory basis, Rule 22 is for commencement of duty, Rule 23 is refund of duty. 3.7.3 Rule 24 is about review and the same is quoted as is relevant, "Review.- (1) Any countervailing duty imposed under section 9 of the Act shall remain in force so long as and to the extent necessary, to counteract subsidisation, which is causing injury. (2) The designated authority shall review the need for the continued imposition of countervailing duty, where warranted, on its own initiative or upon request by any interested party who submits necessary information substantiating the need for such review, and a reasonable period of time has elapsed since the imposition of the definitive countervailing duty and upon such review, the designated authority shall recommend to the Central Government for its withdrawal, when it comes to a conclusion that the injury to the domestic industry....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and (b) the consequent impact of these imports on the domestic producers of such products. (2) With regard to the volume of the subsidized imports, the designated authority shall interalia consider whether there has been a significant increase in subsidized imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India. (3) With regard to the effect of the subsidized import on prices, the designated authority shall, consider whether there has been a significant price undercutting by the subsidized imports as compared with the price of a like article in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or to prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree. (4) Where imports of a product from more than one country are simultaneously subject to countervailing duty investigations, the designated authority may cumulatively assess the effect of such imports only if it determines that (a) the amount of subsidization established in relation to the imports from each country is more than one percent advolorem and the volume of imports from each country is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....espondent no.2. 4.1 It was submitted that the designated authority, respondent no.2 has to follow the procedure contemplated in section 9(6) of the Act read with Rule 24 of the Rules and after making such inquiry, it needed to ascertain whether there has been significant change in the facts, which may necessitate withdrawal of countervailing duty. He then submitted that continuation and recurrence of subsidy and injury are essential elements to be established after investigative and adjudicatory process. He highlighted that the task of the designated authority in this regard is quasi judicial in nature. 4.1.1 It was further submitted that respondent no.1 has to act either in relation to imposition of countervailing duty or withdrawal or revocation thereof only after receiving recommendation in that regard, from respondent no.2 and that such recommendations could be made only after complying with the prescribed procedure of inquiry and arriving at its findings. It was submitted that as the said requirement was not complied with, the impugned notifications would not sustain. It was then submitted that though impugned Notifications purportedly issued in exercise of powers under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LT 305 (SC)] as also in Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India [(2008) 17 SCC 180, paragraph 4 and 5]. Yet another decision in PTC India Ltd. Vs. General Electricity Regulatory Committee [(2010) 4 SCC 603, paragraph 48 to 50]. 4.1.6 Learned senior advocate for the petitioners finally submitted that the Sunset review process was initiated pursuant to the application and representation to examine whether cessation of existing duty was likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of subsidy and injury and that there was sufficient evidence that cessation of existing duty is likely to lead to continuation and recurrence of subsidy and injury. It was submitted that Sunset review is unlikely to be completed on or before 06.09.2022 and it will lead to creation of vacuum to the serious prejudice of the petitioners. He submitted that powers in terms of section 9(6) of the Act are required to be exercised. 4.1.7 For the above proposition, learned senior advocate drew support from the following decisions, (i) Comptroller & Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi vs. K.S. Jagannathan & Anr.[(1986) 2 SCC 679, para 20], (ii) Hari Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra & Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision taken was part of budgetary provision and allocation and was approved by the highest authority. (viii) The decision was also laid before the Parliament and the same received approval of the Parliament. (ix) The decisions of the nature impugned are not open to judicial review unless shown to be malafide or contrary to the settled principles of law. Merely because one part is affected by such decision or some technical aspect with regard to the recommendatory authority is raised, it cannot be called in question. (x) The factors like general policy, diplomatic ties with various countries, international trends, market factors such as price hike, policies of other countries, having direct impact on the product concerned or the industries and such other domestic factors, are taken into consideration before the decision. (xi) The impugned decision is based on the opinion of various experts like economic experts, industrial experts and trade experts. The decision is in nature of sovereign power. (xii) The Court should be slow in interfering with the economic policy matters as the Court lacks expertise on the subject. (xiii) In r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... court will not interfere as it does not possess expertise. The decision in Everyday Industries India Limited Vs. Union of India and Another [(2019) SCC Online Del 7865], Sankar Ram & Co.Vs. Kasi Naicker and Others [(2003) 11 SCC 699] and M.Ahammedkutty Haji Vs. Tahsildar, Kozhikode, Kerala and Others [(2005) 3 SCC 351] were also relied on in support of his submissions. Sequence of Notifications 5. Before proceeding further, the sequence of Notifications may be recollected with relevance. (1) On 04.07.2017, respondent no.2 issued Notification No.14/18/1015-DGAD recommended the imposition of definitive countervailing duty on the product on imports from China PR for a period of five years. (2) Notification dated 07.09.2017 came to be issued imposing the countervailing duty for a period of five years, that is upto 06.09.2022. (3) By issuing notification dated 01.02.2021 under Section 9(1) and 9(6) of the Act read with Rules 20 and 22, read with countervailing duty Rules, the countervailing duty was temporarily suspended till 30.09.2021. (4) The suspension of countervailing duty was further extended till 31.01.2022 by Notification dated 30.09.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd a statute is passed pursuant to the said treaty, it is a legitimate aid to the construction of the provisions of such statute that are vague or ambiguous to have recourse to the terms of the treaty to resolve such ambiguity in favour of a meaning that is consistent with the provisions of the treaty. (3) In a situation where India is a signatory nation to an international treaty, and a statute is made in furtherance of such treaty, a purposive rather than a narrow literal construction of such statute is preferred. The interpretation of such a statute should be construed on broad principles of general acceptance rather than earlier domestic precedents, being intended to carry out treaty obligations, and not to be inconsistent with them. (4) In a situation in which India is a signatory nation to an international treaty, and a statute is made to enforce a treaty obligation, and if there be any difference between the language of such statute and a corresponding provision of the treaty, the statutory language should be construed in the same sense as that of the treaty. This is for the reason that in such cases what is sought to be achieved by the international treaty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Parliament enacts laws, it exercises the sovereign power. The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Rules of 1995 are themselves the product of a sovereign exercise by our Parliament. The authority of the provisions in the enactment not only binds the subjects it governs, but also binds the authorities functioning and playing role thereunder, including the Central Government. There cannot be any separate limb sovereign power exercise, distinct from the enactment and the rules and the functional mandate flowing therefrom. It would be paradoxical and unpalatable to claim that State could disregard the obligations flowing from provisions of particular law or Act to initiate and assert its sovereign power to breach them. 6.1.4 There cannot be separation of concept of sovereignty by the State to claim that in its sovereign power it could disregard and discard the mandates in the statute which is enacted by itself in exercise of such power, on the other hand to assert that there is an independent power in the nature of sovereign power to act de hors the governing statute. It is absurd to suggest that the State will disregard its own laws to act independent of legal requirements, thereby ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions enable the State to usurp the jurisdiction of the Development Authority. 6.3.2 The principle was propounded that the statutory authority cannot act contrary to the scheme framed by them or contrary to the purpose for which they were supposed to act under the Scheme. The Supreme Court held that when the State had no role to play in the matter, even advise given by it would be ultra vires, "The State, as noticed hereinbefore, could not implement its purported policy decision as regard allotment of land on concessional rates. Such a direction or even a policy decision in this behalf is ultra vires being contrary to the statutory rules framed by it. An action by way of policy decision or otherwise at the hands of a statutory authority must be in consonance with the statutory rules and no de'hors the same." (para 67) 6.3.3 The Supreme Court referred to its own decision in Punjab SCB Ltd. Vs. Zora Singh [(2005) 6 SCC 776] and in Union of India vs. V. Ramkrishnan [JT 2005 (9) SC 422], and proceeded to observe that passing of an order for unauthorised purpose in unauthorised manner constitutes even malice in law. The Supreme Court in K.K. Bhalla (supra) stated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7(2) before each house of the Parliament and will come into effect upon approval of the Parliament after modification etc., if any. This Section deals with the Notification in respect of customs duty, which provision is not applicable here. Therefore the entire reliance on Section 7(3) was misconceived. 6.4.1 However, in Sub Section (8) of Section 9, there is provision about laying the Notification before the each house of the Parliament. The provision does not say any further except that 'every Notification issued under this Section shall, as soon as may be after it is issued, be laid before each house of Parliament'. 6.4.2 The Parliament, more often than not, on the subordinate legislation and on the working thereof as well as in respect of the functioning of the authorities under the subordinate legislation, exercises control and supervision by enacting provision in that regard. One of the well known mechanism is to place the rules or notifications before the Parliament, leaving it thereafter for the Parliament to modify, approve or just notice etc. the same. One of such mode is that the rule or notification is placed before the Parliament without providing anything furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the instruments or draft rules shall have no effect unless approved by the House." 6.4.6 Section 9(8) of the Act, as noted above, provides only for placing the notification before each house of the Parliament. There is no further requirement or condition. In the provision of laying of such nature, the underlying idea and intention of the legislature is only to inform the Parliament. The notification is only laid on table and it does not require anything further. It is a laying without further provisions for control. Such rule or notification would become operative from the date it is laid before the House. 6.4.7 In Dai-Ichi Karkaria Limited Vs. Union of India and Others [(2000) 4 SCC 57] the Supreme Court observed that the mere fact of laying the notification before the Parliament does not make substantial difference as regards jurisdiction of the court to pronounce its validity. In that case it was notification under Section 25 of Customs Act required to be laid before the Parliament under Section 159 of the Act. Notification is Quasi-Judicial 6.5. It was another submission in vain on behalf of respondents seeking to assert that notification rescinding the counterv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Customs Tariff Act, appeal lies against the order of determination or review of the countervailing duty before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, constitution under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of this, the Notification necessarily takes a quasi-judicial colour. In Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India[(2008) 17 SCC 180], it was observed and held that the orders of the designated authority, which were recommendatory, the appeal against the tribunal was premature and that the appeal would lie against determination by challenging notification of the Central Government may pass. Scheme is Quasi-Judicial Process 7. A bare reading and even prima facie analysis of the provisions of Section 9, in particular subsection (6) and sub-section (7) thereof read with Rule 24 would go to show that the process of issuance of notification to impose the countervailing duty or to revoke the same is based on an inquiry. It is after investigation in respect of applicable factors relating to continuance or recurrence of subsidisation and the injury to the domestic industry, that the opinion will be formed. Only the ascertainment of such aspects after such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rcises quasi judicial power or not. It was held that in view of the requirement under the provisions of Section 29A that the Commission is to give decision only after making an inquiry, the Commission acts quasi judicially and the decision rendered by it is a quasi judicial order. 7.1.4 The Supreme Court observed that what distinguishes an administrative act from a quasi judicial act is, in the case of quasi judicial function under the relevant law, the statutory authority is required to act judicially. In other words, the law requires that an authority before arriving at a decision, must make an inquiry, such a requirement of law makes the authority a quasi judicial authority. It was observed in light of that Section 29A (i) requires for making an application for registration as a political party, further requires as per its sub-sections (2) and (3) to provide the contents of the application and the further sub-section (7) enjoins the Commission to give reasonable opportunity to the representative of the Association or body while registering a political party or refusing the registration. In the scheme of countervailing duty, the investigation and inquiry is similarly envisaged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by respondent no.2, and (b) subsequent formation of an opinion by respondent no.1 on the basis of the review, that is, whether cessation of countervailing duty would lead to "continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury." These pre-requisites are required to be satisfied at the time of imposing as well as discontinuing the countervailing duty. 7.3 In Rishiroop Polymers Steel Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority and Additional Secretary[(2006) 4 SCC 303], the Supreme Court while indicating the scope of mid-term review in respect of anti-dumping duty under Section 9-A(5) & (6) stated about the parameters to be adopted and the nature of examination to be undertaken. "...scope of the review inquiry by the Designated Authority is limited to the satisfaction as to whether there is justification for continued imposition of such duty on the information received by it. By its very nature, the review inquiry would be limited to see as to whether the conditions which existed at the time of imposition of antidumping duty have altered to such an extent that there is no longer justification for continued imposition of the duty. The inquiry is limited to the change in the various p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osed. It is, therefore, clear that unless the Designated Authority suo motu or the applicant for review is in a position to establish clearly that there has been a significant change in th\e facts and circumstances relating to each of the basic requirements or conditions precedent for imposing duty, the finding given by the Designated Authority at the time of initial imposition of anti-dumping duty must be considered to continue to hold the field." (para 37) 7.3.3 The Apex Court further observed that the final finding recorded by the designated authority at the time of initial imposition of anti-dumping duty on the existence of injury to the domestic industry must be considered to continue to remain valid, unless it is proved to be otherwise, either by the designated authority in suo motu review or by the applicant seeking review. In that case, the review was initiated by the designated authority. No record either placed by the applicant or with the designated authority to displace the findings given by the designated authority at the stage of levy of initial anti-dumping duty. The Court observed that when there was no material to show that there was a change in parameters or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... review." (para 30) 7.4.2 The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the proviso to sub-section (5) of section 9-A of the Act is an enabling provision, which gives maximum life for five years to the imposition of anti-dumping duty by issuing a particular notification, which can of course be extended by issuing fresh notification. 7.4.3 However, the enabling power not to continue the anti-dumping duty/countervailing duty available under the provision, would not obliterate the requirement for the Countervailing Authorities to disregard or overlook the statutory requirement of fulfiling condition to establish about the prejudicial effect to the domestic industry and the ingredients mentioned in the section such as continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and the resultant injury to the domestic industry. Establishing these elements are sine qua non even before withdrawal or rescindment of the duty under the scheme of the provisions. Jurisdictional Aspects 7.5 In the scheme of the statutory provisions noticed as above, a recommendation from the designated authority-respondent no.2 herein. A recommendation from the respondent no.2 is a necessary jurisdictional p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.6.1 The recommendations of the designated authority would contain the findings on these facts and aspects. They are the jurisdictional facts. They are the foundations for the Central Government to take a decision and to issue the notification. The jurisdictional facts cannot be bypassed. 7.6.2 The words 'unless revoked earlier' in section 9(6) of the Act cannot be viewed as denoting powers to the Central Government to revoke the notification of countervailing duty, which is operational, without complying with the requirement of recommendatory exercise. The revocation of the countervailing duty notification, even if to be resorted earlier, it must be preceded by ascertainment by the essential ingredients which are jurisdictional aspects and after having the recommendation of the designated authority in that regard. 7.7 In the present case, the Central Government acted without having with it recommendation of the Designated Authority in issuing the Notification rescinding the countervailing duty. The recommendation of the designated authority secured after statutory exercise and after going into the relevant considerations and criteria, was to be the source material f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny notifications, orders, rule or bye-laws so issued." 8.2 The provision contemplates that wherever power is conferred to issue notification etc., such power would include the power to rescind the Notification as well. Such power, the provision says, is exercisable "in the like manner" and "subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any)". What was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the countervailing duty was imposed by issuing notification dated 07.09.2017, the procedure was followed and the relevant consideration was gone into, therefore, even if the power to rescind is to be conceded to the Government, the rescission of the notification would have to be in the same manner and after satisfying the similar procedure and conditions. 8.3 The words "unless revoked earlier occurring in sub-section (6) in section 9 of the Act would have to be construed accordingly. The same procedure including making of inquiry and ascertaining the aspect injury to the domestic industry, will have to be read into before power to revoke is exercised. It would be reasonable to apply Section 21 by construing the words 'like manner'by equating them, for the purpose of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrence of subsidisation and injury' is sine qua non in the scheme of the provisions before notification to rescind the duty could be issued. The establishing the ingredient 'continuance or recurrence of subsidization' by the exporting counter, and 'injury to the domestic industry' are the founding facts, in the nature of jurisdictional facts. 10. The Supreme Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2020) 9 SCC 356] stated that the "High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority". It further observed, "In appropriate cases, in order to prevent injustice to the parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the government or the public authorities should have passed, had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. In Directors of Settlements, Andhra Pradesh and Others v. M.R. Apparao and Anr.[(2002) 4 SCC 638], observed: "...One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the court must come to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mandatory provisions of law and it is unilateral decision impressible in law as taken without waiting for recommendation of designated authority and thereby violating the jurisdictional requirements. It is therefore liable to be set aside. 11.1 The sequator would be that it would revive the effect of original notification dated 7.9.2017. The countervailing duty would become leviable. 11.2 It may be true that in view of the Notification dated 1.2.2021 and 30.9.2021 suspending the countervailing duty upto 31.1.2022 presently the levy of countervailing duty is not operational. But when the notification of rescindment is being set aside, the order of the court cannot stand devoid of its effect. It is trite that any order of the court does not extend in vacuum or without bringing for the subjects it would govern, necessary consequences. 11.3 As per direction no.(i) in the succeeding paragraph, as Notification dated 01.02.2022 is being set aside, whereby the countervailing duty was rescinded and which would result into revival of the original Notification dated 07.09.2017, which has operational period till 06.09.2022, for five years. 12. At the same time, the Sunset Review p....