CAIRN INDIA LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this case relates to the levy of safeguard duty on goods imported by the petitioner. By a notification dated 13th August, 2014, the Central Government in exercise of powers under sub-section (1) of Section 8B of the Customs Tariff Act read with Rules 12, 14 and 17 of the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997, (hereinafter referred to as "the rules") after considering the findings of the Director General (Safeguards) regarding injury caused to the domestic producers of Seamless Pipes and Tubes, imposed on Seamless Pipes and Tubes falling under the tariff items of the Customs Tariff Act mentioned therein, when imported into India, a safeguard duty at the rate specified in the notification. The note below the notification says that for the purpose of that notification, Seamless Pipes and Tubes does not include -

(2.) It being the case of the petitioner that the goods imported by them would not attract levy of safeguard duty, the petitioner made representations to the Director General (Safeguard Duty) who in turn, appears to have called for the opinion of the applicants at whose instance safeguard investigation concerning import of Seamless Pipes and Tubes had been initiated. By a communication dated 9th January, 2015 of their advocates, the applicants namely, M/s. ISMT Limited and M/s. Jindal Saw Limited (the Domestic Industry) informed the Directorate General of Safeguards that the products in respect of which clarification had been sought would fall under the exclusion entries listed in the notification and have been specifically excluded from the scope of the product under investigation. Thus, the parties at whose instance safeguard duty came to be levied, have clarified that the goods imported by the petitioner fall within the exclusion entries listed in the notification.

(3.) The petitioner has also made representations to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter referred to as "C.B.E. & C.") in this regard; however, no decision has been taken thereon. It appears that since the Order-in-Original has been challenged by the petitioner before the appellate forum and the appeal had been dismissed, the C.B.E. & C. has left it to the statutory authorities under the Customs Act to decide the issue.