UNITED PHOSPHOROUS Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL (SAFEGUARD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners claiming to be domestic producers of yellow phosphorous complain that they have suffered serious injury on account of imports of the said item. They approached the Director General (Safeguards) as per the provisions of Safeguard Duty Rules framed under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The Director General (Safeguards) has given his final findings which have been challenged by the petitioners by way of present writ petition. The conclusion recorded in para 22 of the final findings of the Director General (Safeguards) is - 'The domestic producers of White/Yellow Phosphorous have suffered serious injury caused by the increased imports of White/Yellow Phosphorous. It is, however, not in the public interest to impose Safeguard Duty on imports of White/Yellow phosphorous. No recommendation to impose Safeguard Duty on White/Yellow Phosphorous imported into India is, thereforee, made.'

(2.) IT has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that having found that serious injury was caused to the domestic producers, the Director General was bound to make recommendation to the Central Government for levy of Safeguard Duty. Thus it is argued that the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Our attention has been invited to the relevant rules, i.e., Rules 4 and 11 of the Safeguard Duty Rules in this behalf. 'Rule 4 (4) to recommend : -

(3.) RULE 11 is regarding final findings of the Director General. It is submitted that in view of Rule 11, the only option available to the Director General is to make recommendation for levy of Safeguard Duty.