Allowed

Acc Refractories ltd., v. Union of India

Telangana HC9 Jul 2014WP/7637/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the imposition of anti-dumping duty on fused magnesia. The Court directed that no duty be levied if the authority's order for withdrawal is formalized, pending the outcome of related Civil Appeals.

What did the court decide?

No duty to be levied if the order for withdrawal of anti-dumping duty is formally given effect; parties to abide by the outcome of pending Civil Appeals.

Acc Refractories ltd., Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.P.No.7637 of 2001

¶2

ORDER: (Per LNR,J)

¶3

The petitioner is a manufacturer of refractory bricks, magnesite raming mass, magnesia carbon bricks etc. Raw material for the petitioner is ‘fused magnesia’. Substantial quantity of raw material was being imported from Peoples Republic of China (for short ‘China’).

¶4

The petitioner states that M/s. Birla Periclase, a division of Indian Rayon and Industry Limited, Visakhapatnam had a unit at Nagpur, which manufactures ‘sintered magnesia’. That company is said to have complained to the Additional Secretary-cum-Designated Authority, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce, 2^nd respondent herein alleging that the indiscriminate dumping of fused magnesia from China has adversely effected its activity and made a request to impose antidumping duty (for short ‘the duty’). Acting upon the said representation, respondents 1 and 2 are said to have imposed duty on fused magnesia imported from China. The petitioner challenges the steps taken by respondents 1 and 2 in imposing the duty. The petitioner further states that the Central Excise Board and Appellate Tribunal (CEBAT) has set aside the orders, through which duty was imposed and that the 2^nd respondent has challenged the same by filing Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Their grievance is that since no stay was granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the duty is being levied.

¶5

The respondents filed a counter affidavit, narrating

¶6

the circumstances, under which the duty came to be imposed. It is stated that the representations made by various organizations opposing such duty are under consideration.

¶7

It is no doubt competent for respondents 1 and 2 to choose the goods for levying the duty. The objective is to protect the domestic industry and supplies of rawmaterial. Much, however, depends upon the nature of the goods, which are chosen for this purpose.

¶8

During the pendency of the writ petition, an important development has taken place. While M/s. Birla Periclase complained about the dumping of the raw material from China, the petitioner and other industrial establishments, which were using that raw material, opposed the imposition of duty. The 2^nd respondent has undertaken detailed exercise in this behalf and passed an order on 09.06.2013 duly referring to the contentions of various industrial establishments. Ultimately, he arrived at the following conclusions:

¶9

J.CONCLUSIONS:

¶10

11. The authority has, after considering the foregoing, come to the conclusions that:

¶11

(i) the decision leading to the closure of factory of M/s. Birla Periclase (which was manufacturing “sintered magnesia”) was a result of other factors as well as that of Chinese dumping of the product.

¶12

(ii) Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the continuation of anti-dumping duty is not justified and the Authority recommends accordingly:

¶13

(iii) After careful consideration of the entire matter, the Authority recommends retrospective withdrawal of the anti-dumping duty on “Fused Magnesia” with effect from 01.10.1999.

¶14

From this, it becomes clear that the complaint of M/s. Birla Periclase, at whose instance the duty was

¶15

imposed was not genuine and the losses suffered by it were on account of some other factors. A specific recommendation is made for withdrawal of the duty with retrospective effect. With that, the case of the petitioner becomes strengthened. It is not known as to whether any formal order has been issued to give effect to the order, dated 09.06.2003 passed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶16

We therefore dispose of the writ petition, directing

¶17

that-

¶18

(a) in case, the order, dated 09.06.2003 has been given effect to, in the formal manner, no duty shall be levied from the petitioner; and

¶19

(b) the petitioner as well as respondents 2 and 3 shall abide by the outcome of Civil Appeal Nos.4936 and 4937 of 2000. If the matter is still pending, the parties shall await the outcome of those appeals.

¶20

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶22

______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶23

Date: 09.07.2014 JSU

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶25

W.P.No.7637 of 2001

¶26

Date: 09.07.2014

¶27

JSU

Acc Refractories ltd., v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Acc Refractories ltd., v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akbar Sha, Vs The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s.Standard Tyres and Motors, Vijayawada, Vs The Commissioner of Income tax, Vijayawada.

R. Damodar Reddy Vs The Commissioner of Income-tax

M/S Arjundas Rajkumar and Others Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

The Commissioner of Incometax v.Wada Vs D.Ramakrishna Guntur

Commissioner of Income Tax Ap II Hyd Vs M/S United Construction Co. Hyd