UNION OF INDIA ANR v. Sharma, Advs

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra and Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Ms. Kanchan Shakya & Ms. Priyam Sharma, Advs. for UOI. WITH W.P.(C) 11753/2023 M/S NOCIL LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus Sharma, Advs. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra and Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Ms. Kanchan Shakya & Ms. Priyam Sharma, Advs. for UOI. WITH W.P.(C) 11754/2023 M/S OWENS-COMING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. WITH W.P.(C) 11763/2023 M/S JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. 23 + 24 + 25 + WITH W.P.(C) 11765/2023 M/S FORUM OF ACRYLIC FIBRE MANUFACTURES Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Adv. for CGSC. WITH W.P.(C) 11766/2023 M/S ASSOCIATION OF CHLOROMETHANES MANUFACTURERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. WITH W.P.(C) 11771/2023 M/S DEEPAK PHENOLICS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus 26 + 27 + .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinay Yadav SPC MS Kamna Behrani, Mr. Ansh Kalra, Mr. Divyanshu (M: 9109698880) Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, Sinha, Advs. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters 28 + WITH W.P.(C) 11773/2023 M/S APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED SSC. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinay Yadav SPC MS Kamna Behrani, Mr. Ansh Kalra, Mr. Divyanshu Sinha, Advs. Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. 29 + WITH W.P.(C) 11776/2023 M/S THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinay Yadav SPC MS Kamna Behrani, Mr. Ansh Kalra, Mr. Divyanshu Sinha, Advs. Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. 30 + WITH W.P.(C) 11777/2023 M/S BAJAJ HEALTHCARE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. versus Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Ms. Kanchan Shakya & Ms. Priyam Sharma, Advs. for UOI. 31 + WITH W.P.(C) 11805/2023 M/S UI VR PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, Mr. Shailendra Chandan Kumar Mishra, Mr. Prajapati, Ms. Kanchan Shakya & Ms. Priyam Sharma, Advs. for UOI. Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Adv. for CGSC. 32 + WITH W.P.(C) 11967/2023 M/S J K PAPER LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters 33 + WITH W.P.(C) 11973/2023 Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Adv. for CGSC. M/S ALKALI MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Adv. for CGSC. 34 + AND W.P.(C) 11981/2023 M/S AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus .....Respondents Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC. Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Adv. for CGSC. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

2. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. These petitions challenge the amendments brought about in the Customs Tariff Provisions i.e., Sections 9, 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 vide Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023, as being ultra vires. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters

3. Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 reads as under: “134. In the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, (hereinafter referred to as the Customs Tariff Act), with effect from the 1st day of January, 1995, (i) in section 9,- (a) in sub-section (6), in the first proviso, for the words "in a review", the words "on consideration of a review" shall be substituted; (b) in sub-section (7), the words "and determined" shall be omitted; (ii) in section 9 A,- (a) in sub-section (5), in the first proviso, for the words "in a review", the words "on consideration of a review" shall be substituted; (b) in sub-section (6), the words "and determined" shall be omitted; (iii) in section 9C,- ( a) in sub-section ( 1), the words "order of' shall be omitted; (b) in sub-section (2), for the word "order" the words "determination or review" shall be substituted; (c) in sub-section ( 3), for the word "order", the words "determination or review" shall be substituted; (d) after sub-section (5), the following Explanation shall be inserted, namely:- Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "determination" or "review" means the determination or review done in such manner as may be specified in the rules made under sections 8B, 9, 9A and 9B.”

4. A comparative chart of the provisions which were amended in contrast with the unamended provisions is set out below: Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters

5. The Petitioners were aggrieved by this amendment as according to them, the substantive rights of the Petitioners to challenge the notifications were being taken away.

6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that recently, the Customs Excise Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘CESTAT’) in its order dated 26th August, 2025, in Anti Dumping Appeal No. 53193/2023 titled ‘Essilorluxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. (Formerly known as Essilor Amera Pte Ltd.) v. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Trade Remedies and Ors.’, has held as under: “79. It is in the context of the un-amended provisions of sub-sections (1) and (6) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act that the aforesaid observations were made by the Supreme Court in Tata Chemicals (2). After the amendment made by section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023, the determination or review is only by the designated authority and it is against this determination or review that an appeal would lie to the Tribunal under section Act. 80. What, therefore, follows from the above discussion is that: Customs Tariff 9C (i) Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 has not come into force since the Central Government has not issued any notification as contemplated under section 1(2)(b) to bring into force the said section. Consequently, the amendment to sections 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act by section 134 of the Finance Act have not come into force. An appeal would, therefore, lie to this Tribunal under section 9C of existing Customs provisions of the Customs Tariff Act against the findings dated 29.09.2022 of designated authority published in the Gazette of India-Extra Ordinary on 29.09.2022 and the consequential notification dated 27.12.2022 India-Extra published in the Gazette of Ordinary on 27.12.2022 imposing anti- dumping (ii) The contention advanced by the learned Tariff Act under the duty; Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters notification for the appellant counsel that even if a notification as contemplated under section 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2023 is now issued to bring section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 into force, the Tribunal would still continue to have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Central issued Government imposing anti-dumping duty, as it had before, to hear appeals under section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act cannot be accepted. 81. As noticed above, the Central Government has not issued any notification contemplated under section 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2023 and, therefore, section 134 of the Finance Act has not come into force. This appeal is, therefore, maintainable before the Tribunal.”

7. In effect, the finding of CESTAT is that Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 has not been notified under Section 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2023 to bring into force the said Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023. In view thereof, the CESTAT has held the said appeal to be maintainable before CESTAT. The finding being that Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 has not been notified, the amended Sections 9, 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 have therefore not come into effect.

8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of this order dated 26th August, 2025 of CESTAT, the Petitioners do not wish to press the present petitions. However, if the position changes, they may be given liberty to revive the present petition.

9. The above mentioned position as to the notification, is not contested by ld. Counsel for the Respondent.

11. In view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of as infructuous. The Court has not examined the merits of the challenge in these writ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters petitions. The same would be examined in an appropriate case if the need arises.

12. Liberty is granted to revive the present petitions if the position as set out above in respect of the notification of Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023, changes.

13. All petitions are disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 Rahul/ck Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:17.09.2025 18:30:16 W.P.(C) 11751/2023 & connected matters