Union of India v. M/S APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED

VERSUS

DEEPAK PHENOLICS LTD.....Respondent 41 WITH + W.P.(C) 3825/2023 & CM APPL. 14887/2023

VERSUS

JINDAL STAINLESS HISAR LIMITED JSHL.....Respondent 42 WITH + W.P.(C) 4039/2023 & CM APPL. 15745/2023 JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED JSL.....Respondent 43 WITH + W.P.(C) 4401/2023, CM APPL. 16944/2023, CM APPL. 16945/2023 & CM APPL. 16946/2023

VERSUS

JINDAL STAINLESS HISAR LIMITED JSHL.....Respondent 44 WITH + W.P.(C) 4501/2023, CM APPL. 17199/2023, CM APPL. 17200/2023 & CM APPL. 17201/2023

VERSUS

M/S JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED (JSL).....Respondent 45 WITH + W.P.(C) 4506/2023, CM APPL. 17269/2023, CM APPL. 17270/2023 & CM APPL. 17271/2023

VERSUS

M/S IG PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED.....Respondent 46 WITH + W.P.(C) 4676/2023, CM APPL. 18051/2023 & CM APPL. 18053/2023 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF versus M/S THIRUMAL CHEMICALS LIMITED.....Respondent 48 WITH + W.P.(C) 5047/2023 & CM APPL. 19720/2023

VERSUS

JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED JSL.....Respondent 49 WITH + W.P.(C) 5145/2023 & CM APPL. 20093/2023

VERSUS

M/S OWENS CORNING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.....Respondent 51 WITH + W.P.(C) 5494/2023, CM APPL. 21428/2023, CM APPL. 25428/2023, CM APPL. 25518/2023, CM APPL. 30799/2023, CM APPL. 30800/2023, CM APPL. 30801/2023, CM APPL. 30803/2023 & CM APPL. 30804/2023

VERSUS

M/S JINDAL STAINLESS STEEL LIMITED.....Respondent 52 WITH + W.P.(C) 5681/2023, CM APPL. 22227/2023, CM APPL. 25399/2023, CM APPL. 25404/2023, CM APPL. 25520/2023, CM APPL. 30798/2023, CM APPL. 30802/2023 & CM APPL. 30805/2023

VERSUS

M/S JINDAL STAINLESS HISAR LIMITED.....Respondent 53 WITH + W.P.(C) 5924/2023 & CM APPL. 23221/2023

VERSUS

JINDAL STAINLESS HISAR LIMITED.....Respondent 54 WITH + W.P.(C) 6385/2023 SIJ ACRONI D O O.....Petitioner versus JINDAL STAINLESS HISAR LIMITED & ORS......Respondents Presence: Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Mr. Anurag Ojha, Sr. SC with Mr. Subham Kumar and Mr. Dipak Raj, Advs. in Items No. 13 to 18 and 31, 34 to 46, 48, 49, 51 to 54. Counsel for the Respondent(s): Mr Abhay Chattopadhyay, Mr. Sarthak Yadav, Mr. Sanjay Notani, Mr. Ambarish Sathianathan and Ms. Harika Bakaraju, Advs. in Items No. 31, 51 and 52. (M: 9654770189) Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. in Items No. 13-15, 18, 31, 34, 35, 37-54. Mr. R. Venkat Prabhat, SPC with Mr. Abhinav M. Goel, Ms Kamna Behrani and Mr. Ansh Kalra, Advs. for UOI in Item No. 54. (M: 9109698880) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The Respondents in these petitions who are stated to be the domestic industry, had filed their respective applications before the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (hereinafter “DGTR”) praying for imposition of Anti- Dumping Duty (hereinafter “ADD”) in terms of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter “the Act”) and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 in respect of the following products: Sr. No. Writ Petition No. Party Name Product Name Country of Origin

1. W.P(C) 10641/2022 Union of India vs M/s Apcotex Industries Ltd. Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber Korea RP

2. W.P(C) 10781/2022 Union of India vs. Association of Chloromethanes Manufacturers Methylene Chloride China PR

3. W.P(C) 11394/2022 Union of India vs. Forum for Acrylic Fibre Manufacturer Forum Acrylic Fibre Belarus, Ukraine, European Union, Peru

4. W.P(C) 11774/2022 Forum for Acrylic Fibre Manufacturer Forum Acrylic Fibre Thailand 5 W.P(C) 12077/2022 M/s Si Group India Private Limited Nonyl Phenol Chinese Taipei

6. W.P(C) 5185/2022 Jubilant Infgrevia Limited Chlorine Chloride in all forms China PR

7. W.P(C) 1324/2023 Apcotex Industries Limited Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber China PR, European Union, Japan, Russia

8. W.P(C) 2461/2023 Deepak Phenolics Limited Phenol Thailand, United States of America

9. W.P(C) 2820/2023 Gujrat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. Melamine China PR

10. W.P(C) 2867/2023 Gujrat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. Caprolactam European Union, Korea RP, Russia, Thailand

11. W.P(C) 3390/2023 M/s UI VR Pvt Ltd Peroxosulphates (Perulphates) China PR,

12. W.P(C) 3598/2023 Gujrat Fluorochemicals Limited Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTEE) Russia

13. W.P(C) 3824/2023 Deepak Phenolics Ltd Phenol European Union, Singapore

14. W.P(C) 3825/2023 Jindal Stainless Hisar Limited Flat Products of Stainless Steel Indonesia

15. W.P(C) 4039/2023 Limited JSL Hot Rolled Steel - 304 grade China PR, Malaysia and Korea RP

16. W.P(C) 4401/2023 Hisar Limited JSHL Hot Rolled Steel - 304 grade China PR, Malaysia and Korea RP

17. W.P(C) 4501/2023 Steel Indonesia

18. W.P(C) 4506/2023 IG Petrochemicals Limited Phthalic Anhydride Japan, Russia

19. W.P(C) 4676/2023 Thirumal Chemicals Limited Phthalic Anhydride Russia

20. W.P(C) Union of India vs Cold-Rolled China PR, 5047/2023 Jindal Stainless Steel of width 600 nm to 1250 nm and above 1250 mm of non bonafide usage Kora PR, European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand and

21. W.P(C) 5145/2023 Owens Corning India Glass Fibre and articles thereof China PR

22. W.P(C) 5494/2023 M/s Jindal Stainless Steel Limited Flat Rolled Products of China PR, Kora PR, European Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, of America, Japan, Indonesia, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia

23. W.P(C) 5681/2023 Stainless Hisar China PR, Kora PR, European Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, Japan, UAE, Hong Kong, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia

24. W.P(C) 5924/2023 Stainless Hisar Cold–Rolled Steel of width 600 nm to 1250 nm and above 1250 mm of non bonafide usage China PR, Korea PR, European Africa, Taiwan, Thailand and

25. W.P(C)6385/ SIJ Acroni DOO vs Hisar Limited & Ors. China PR, Kora PR, European Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, Japan, UAE, Hong Kong, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia

3. Findings were issued in the respective applications by the Designated Authority, DGTR recommending imposition of provisional ADD on the concerned import of goods from certain countries. Thereafter, final findings were also notified recommending imposition of ADD. The definitive ADD was then imposed vide respective Customs notifications issued in various cases.

4. After the imposition of the ADD, a sunset review was undertaken by the Designated Authority, DGTR in order to examine the effect of the imposition of ADD. Final findings were rendered in the sunset review, wherein the Designated Authority, DGTR came to the conclusion that the ADD deserves to be continued.

5. However, the Central Government, on this occasion, did not accept the recommendations of the DGTR and hence the ADD was set aside in the respective cases. The various Office Memorandums issued by the Central Government not to continue the ADD, were challenged before Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter “CESTAT”) which then set aside the said Office Memorandums.

6. The challenge in these petitions, is to the respective orders of CESTAT, which set aside the respective Office Memorandums, by which the ADD was not accepted by the Central Government.

7. The question of law that has been raised by the Union of India in these cases is whether an Office Memorandum is capable of being assailed before CESTAT.

8. It is submitted by the ld. Counsels for the parties today that similar petitions in respect of certain other products were filed by the Union of India before the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the order passed by CESTAT setting aside the respective Office Memorandums.

9. In that case, being SLP (C) Diary No. 31452/2023 titled as Union of India vs. Plastics Machinery Manufacturers Association of India through its Director and Ors., the Supreme Court passed the following order on 9th December, 2024: “It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the domestic industries have given up their right in terms of the recommendation made by the designated authority, as well as, their claims on the basis of the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. In view of the statement made, the special leave petition is dismissed as infructuous.”

10. 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.

11. In effect thereof, the domestic industry no longer presses for imposition of ADD. The respective Office Memorandums, therefore, are no longer challenged by the domestic industry.

12. The question of law raised by the Union of India i.e., as to whether CESTAT has jurisdiction to set aside an Office Memorandum or not, would therefore become moot in this background.

13. 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 Respondentsdomestic industry.

14. The legal issues raised in these petitions are, however, kept open for adjudication in an appropriate case.

15. The interim orders in all these matters, if any, shall stand vacated.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DHARMESH SHARMA JUDGE FEBRUARY 13, 2025/gunn/ms