Union Of India v. Deepak Phenolics Ltd

$~ 13 to 18, 31, 34 to 37, 39 to 46, 48, 49, 51 to 54 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 13th February, 2025 + W.P.(C) 10641/2022, CM APPL. 8734/2025 & CM APPL. 8814/2025 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE .....Petitioner versus M/S APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 10781/2022 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus ASSOCIATION OF CHLOROMETHANES MANUFACTURERS .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 11394/2022 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus FORUM FOR ACRYLIC FIBRE MANUFACTURER FORUM (FAFM) .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 11774/2022 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus FORUM OF ACRYLIC FIBRE MANUFACTURERS FAFM .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 12077/2022

UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus M/S SI GROUP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 5185/2022 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus JUBLIANT INGREVIA LIMITED .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 1324/2023 & CM APPL. 4961/2023 UNION OF INDIA THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE .....Petitioner versus APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 2461/2023 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY .....Petitioner versus M/S. DEEPAK PHENOLICS LIMITED .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 2820/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus M/S GUJRAT STATE FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 2867/2023 & CM APPL. 11110/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus

M/S GUJRAT STATE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 3390/2023 & CM APPL. 13134/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus M/S UI VR PVT LTD .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 3598/2023 & CM APPL. 13949/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus M/S GUJRAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 3824/2023 & CM APPL. 14884/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus DEEPAK PHENOLICS LTD .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 3825/2023 & CM APPL. 14887/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus JINDAL STAINLESS HISAR LIMITED JSHL .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 4039/2023 & CM APPL. 15745/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus

JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED JSL .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 4401/2023, CM APPL. 16944/2023, CM APPL. 16945/2023 & CM APPL. 16946/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus JINDAL STAINLESS HISAR LIMITED JSHL .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 4501/2023, CM APPL. 17199/2023, CM APPL. 17200/2023 & CM APPL. 17201/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus M/S JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED (JSL) .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 4506/2023, CM APPL. 17269/2023, CM APPL. 17270/2023 & CM APPL. 17271/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus M/S IG PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 4676/2023, CM APPL. 18051/2023 & CM APPL. 18053/2023 UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE .....Petitioner versus M/S THIRUMAL CHEMICALS LIMITED .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 5047/2023 & CM APPL. 19720/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner

versus JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED JSL .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 5145/2023 & CM APPL. 20093/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus M/S OWENS CORNING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent 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 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus M/S JINDAL STAINLESS STEEL LIMITED .....Respondent 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 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner versus M/S JINDAL STAINLESS HISAR LIMITED .....Respondent WITH + W.P.(C) 5924/2023 & CM APPL. 23221/2023 UNION OF INDIA .....Petitioner

versus JINDAL STAINLESS HISAR LIMITED .....Respondent 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 AntiDumping 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.

Country of Origin 1.

W.P(C) 10641/2022 Writ Petition No.

Party Name Product Name 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 Acrylic Fibre Belarus, Ukraine, European Union, Peru 4.

W.P(C) 11774/2022 Union of India vs.

Forum for Acrylic Fibre Manufacturer Forum Union of India vs Forum for Acrylic Fibre Manufacturer Forum Acrylic Fibre Thailand W.P(C) 12077/2022 Union of India vs M/s Si Group India Private Limited Nonyl Phenol Chinese Taipei 6.

W.P(C) 5185/2022 Union of India vs Jubilant Infgrevia Limited Chlorine Chloride in all forms China PR 7.

W.P(C) 1324/2023 China PR, European Union, Japan, Russia 8.

W.P(C) 2461/2023 Union of India vs Apcotex Industries Limited Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber Phenol Thailand, United States of America 9.

W.P(C) 2820/2023 Union of India vs Deepak Phenolics Limited Union of India vs Gujrat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd.

Melamine China PR

10.

W.P(C) 2867/2023 Caprolactam European Union, Korea RP, Russia, Thailand 11.

W.P(C) 3390/2023 Union of India vs Gujrat State Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd.

China PR, United States of America 12.

W.P(C) 3598/2023 Union of India vs M/s UI VR Pvt Ltd Peroxosulphates (Perulphates) Union of India vs Gujrat Fluorochemicals Limited Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTEE) Russia 13.

W.P(C) 3824/2023 Phenol European Union, Singapore 14.

W.P(C) 3825/2023 Union of India vs Deepak Phenolics Ltd Union of India vs Jindal Stainless Hisar Limited Flat Products of Stainless Steel Indonesia 15.

W.P(C) 4039/2023 Union of India vs Jindal Stainless Limited JSL Hot Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel - grade China PR, Malaysia and Korea RP 16.

W.P(C) 4401/2023 Union of India vs Jindal Stainless Hisar Limited JSHL Hot Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel - grade China PR, Malaysia and Korea RP 17.

W.P(C) 4501/2023 Union of India vs Jindal Stainless Limited JSL Flat Products of Stainless Steel Indonesia 18.

W.P(C) 4506/2023 Union of India vs IG Petrochemicals Limited Phthalic Anhydride Japan, Russia 19.

W.P(C) 4676/2023 Union of India vs Thirumal Chemicals Limited Phthalic Anhydride Russia 20.

W.P(C) Union of India vs Cold-Rolled China PR,

Kora PR, European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand and United States of America 21.

W.P(C) 5145/2023 5047/2023 Jindal Stainless Limited JSL Flat Products of Stainless Steel of width nm to 1250 nm and above mm of non bonafide usage Union of India vs Owens Corning India Glass Fibre and articles thereof China PR 22.

W.P(C) 5494/2023 China PR, Kora PR, European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, United States of America, Japan, Indonesia, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia 23.

W.P(C) 5681/2023 Union of India vs M/s Jindal Stainless Steel Limited Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel Union of India vs M/s Jindal Stainless Hisar Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel China PR, Kora PR, European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, United States of America, Japan,

Indonesia, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia 24.

W.P(C) 5924/2023 China PR, Korea PR, European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand and United States of America 25.

W.P(C)6385/ Union of India vs M/s Jindal Stainless Hisar Cold-Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel of width nm to 1250 nm and above mm of non bonafide usage China PR, Kora PR, European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, United States of America, Japan, Indonesia, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia SIJ Acroni DOO vs Jindal Stainless Hisar Limited & Ors.

Flat Rolled Products of Stainless Steel 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