UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE v. M/S APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED

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)

2. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:14.02.2025 16:24:12 W.P.(C) 10641/2022 and connected matters Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 in respect of the following products: Sr. No. 1.

4. 5

9. Writ Petition No. W.P(C) W.P(C) W.P(C) W.P(C) W.P(C) W.P(C) W.P(C) W.P(C) W.P(C) Party Name Union of India vs M/s Apcotex Industries Ltd. Union of India vs. Association Chloromethanes Manufacturers Union of India vs. Forum for Acrylic Fibre Manufacturer Forum Union of India vs Forum for Acrylic Fibre Manufacturer Forum Union of India vs M/s Si Group India Private Limited Union of India vs Jubilant Infgrevia Limited Union of India vs Apcotex Industries Limited Union of India vs Deepak Phenolics Limited Union of India vs State Gujrat Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. Product Name Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber Methylene Chloride Country of Origin Korea RP China PR Acrylic Fibre Belarus, Ukraine, European Union, Peru Acrylic Fibre Thailand Nonyl Phenol Chinese Taipei China PR PR, China European Union, Japan, Russia Thailand, United States of America China PR Chlorine Chloride in all Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber Phenol Melamine Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:14.02.2025 16:24:12 W.P.(C) 10641/2022 and connected matters

10. W.P(C)

11. W.P(C)

12. W.P(C)

13. W.P(C)

14. W.P(C)

15. W.P(C)

16. W.P(C)

17. W.P(C)

18. W.P(C)

19. W.P(C) Union of India vs State Gujrat Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. Union of India vs M/s UI VR Pvt Ltd Union of India vs Gujrat Fluorochemicals Limited Union of India vs Deepak Phenolics Ltd Union of India vs Jindal Stainless Hisar Limited Union of India vs Jindal Stainless Limited JSL Union of India vs Stainless Jindal Hisar Limited JSHL Union of India vs Stainless Jindal Limited JSL Union of India vs IG Petrochemicals Limited Union of India vs Thirumal Chemicals Limited Caprolactam Peroxo- sulphates (Perulphates) Polytetra- fluoroethylene (PTEE) Phenol Flat Products Stainless Steel Hot Rolled Flat Products Stainless Steel - 304 Rolled Hot Flat Products Stainless - 304 Steel Flat Products Stainless Steel Phthalic Anhydride Phthalic Anhydride European Union, Korea RP, Russia, Thailand PR, China United States of America Russia European Union, Singapore Indonesia China PR, Malaysia and Korea RP PR, China Malaysia and Korea RP Indonesia Japan, Russia Russia

20. W.P(C) Union of India vs Cold-Rolled China PR, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:14.02.2025 16:24:12 W.P.(C) 10641/2022 and connected matters Jindal Limited JSL Stainless

21. W.P(C)

22. W.P(C) Union of India vs Owens Corning India Union of India vs Jindal M/s Steel Stainless Limited Flat Products Stainless Steel of width 600 nm 1250 nm and 1250 mm of non bonafide usage Fibre Glass articles thereof Rolled Flat Products Stainless Steel

23. W.P(C) Union of India vs M/s Jindal Stainless Hisar Rolled Flat Products Stainless Steel PR, Kora European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand and United States of America China PR PR, PR, China Kora European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, United States of America, Japan, Indonesia, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia China Kora European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, United States of America, Japan, PR, PR, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:14.02.2025 16:24:12 W.P.(C) 10641/2022 and connected matters

24. W.P(C) Union of India vs M/s Jindal Stainless Hisar

25. W.P(C)6385/ 2023 SIJ Acroni DOO vs Jindal Stainless Hisar Limited & Ors. Cold–Rolled Flat Products Stainless Steel of width 600 nm 1250 nm and 1250 mm of non bonafide usage Rolled Flat Products Stainless Steel PR, PR, Indonesia, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia China Korea European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand and United States of America China Kora European Union, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, United States of America, Japan, Indonesia, UAE, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Vietnam, Malaysia PR, PR,

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:14.02.2025 16:24:12 W.P.(C) 10641/2022 and connected matters 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:14.02.2025 16:24:12 W.P.(C) 10641/2022 and connected matters 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 Respondents- domestic industry. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:14.02.2025 16:24:12 W.P.(C) 10641/2022 and connected matters

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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:14.02.2025 16:24:12 W.P.(C) 10641/2022 and connected matters