Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2.1 Petitioner-company has set up an integrated steel plant of capacity 1.57 MTP at Toranagallu in Bellary District. It is not disputed that the petitioners adopted the Corex - Basic Oxygen Furnace - Continuous Casting Process - Hot Strip Mills Route. Apart from this, the petitioners have also set up a Pellet Plant of Capacity 3 MTPA in the premises for manufacturing iron oxide pellets which is an essential input for pig iron making in the Corex Furnace, Petitioners are adopting a state-of-the-art technology for iron making i.e., Corex Furnace which is imported. Such a plant has been set up for the first time in India keeping in view the imports and benefits for production of pig iron. It has several advantages like, it is possible to use non-cooking coal, energy efficient, better and faster control over melt quality, environment friendly, lower cost of production etc., Department of Metallurgy, Institute of Science, Bangalore, has opined that blast Furnace and Corex Furnace involve the same processes. A certificate issued by the Department of Metallurgy, Institute of Science, Bangalore, is at Annexure-B. Petitioner made a representation to the Indian Institute of Science for their comments on the similarlity of the two processes. The Institute by its letter dated 21-1-2003 further certified that the technology fall in the same class. Annexure-B1 is the certificate. Mecon Ltd., a Government of India enterprise also has issued a certificate opining that there is no basic difference between Corex Furnace and the blast furnace technology. Annexure-C is the certificate. Petitioner again made a representation to Mecon Ltd., for their comments on the similarity of the two process. Mecon Ltd., clarified that both the technologies fall in the same class. Annexure-C1 is the said clarification dtd. 23-2-2003. Metallurgical Coke is an essential input used in the manufacture of pig iron or steel which in turn is used in the manufacture of Hot Rolled Coils and Plates. Metallurgical Coke is regularly imported by the Company and at present the company has pending orders for import of about 60,000 MT, Respondent No. 1 issued a notification Annexure-A in relation to the basic customs duty payable on the import of Metcoke into India whereby the Company was compelled to pay the basic customs duty at 15% ad valorem on the said goods under Heading 27.04 of CTA in respect of consignments cleared between the period 26-4-2001 to 28-2-2002 and it was denied the benefit of the notification. Petitioner made several representation to the concerned authorities, requesting them to consider making recommendations to the Ministry of Finance for extending of the benefit of the concessional rate of customs duty under the said notification. Petitioners state that while announcing the changes vide Circular bearing No. B-9/4/2001-TRU, dtd. 25-4-2001 the Government of India stated that some of the changes made by the said notification provided for exemption on an end-use basis. Petitioner as filed Annexure-E, a circular along with extract of the speech of the Hon'ble Union Finance Minister made on 25-4-2001 wherein the Hon'ble Minister has stated that the customs duty on Metcoke is proposed to be reduced to 5% on actual user basis to steel plants to help improve their viability. According to petitioner, the actual user, steel plant, includes blast furnace as well as Corex Furnace. Notification dtd. 19-5-2000 was issued by the first respondent for Anti-dumping duty was sought to be levied on the goods imported from China. The notification however, granted exemption only to manufacturers of pig iron or steel using blast furnace. Petitioner is challenging the discrimination in the matter of exemption. The matter is now pending in Supreme Court. The Government of India amended the notification on 19-5-2000 and exempted Metcoke from Anti-dumping duty if imported by manufacturers of pig iron or steel using blast furnace. Writ petition was filed in this Court. This Court granted interim reliefs to the petitioners permitting the company to clear the said goods on the payment of admitted duty and on the payment of 50% of disputed duty in cash and furnishing a Bank Guarantee for the remaining amount. The goods were imported in terms of the interim orders of this Court. Annexure-K is the interim order. Respondents thereafter issued a notification dated 1-3-2002 whereby the basic Customs Duty payable by the petitioner was restricted to 5% ad valorem instead of existing 15% ad valorem thus bringing uniformity in the basic customs duty to all manufacturers of pig iron or steel including the petitioner. Petitioner imported eleven consignments between 26-4-2001 and 1-3-2002 of metcoke. Petitioner paid the additional amount of customs duty in terms of the interim order of this Court. This Court thereafter remanded the matter by its final order and asked the petitioner to make representation to consider the plea of the petitioner and this Court further directed the respondents to find out as to whether the petitioners' technology is same or similar to that of manufacture of pig iron and steel using blast furnace. Order of this Court is filed at Annexure-L. Thereafter a detailed representation was filed in terms of Annexure-N. The same has been rejected in terms of the endorsement dtd. 6-1-2003 Annexure-P. Petitioner aggrieved by Annexure-P is before me in this petition.
4. Sri Atul Setalvad, learned Senior Counsel took me through the pleadings to contend that a discriminatory treatment is meted out to the petitioner. He would say that grant of 15% concessional rate to manufacturers of steel using blast furnace is arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the certificates to contend that the Corex Technology and Blast Furnace Technology are one and the same. The older technology is the blast furnace technology and the modern technology is the Corex Technology. There is no difference between the two and that therefore benefits cannot be denied to the petitioner. Learned Counsel refers to the writ petition to contend that the respondents contrary to the direction of this Court have chosen to reject the representation thereby injustice has been done to his client. Learned Counsel says that the subsequent notification provides for a benefit in favour of the petitioner. In conclusion learned Counsel strongly contends that this Court has to interfere in the given set of circumstances. He also attacks the endorsement on the basis of the material already available on record in the light of the two certificates issued by the Central Government. Learned Counsel relies on several judgments in support of his contention. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent argues that no case is made out by the petitioner. He says that a deliberate policy decision was taken to exclude Corex Technology and that cannot be questioned by the petitioner. There is no violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. He explains the certificate to contend that Corex Technology differs from Blast Furnace Technology. He refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court to contend that the petition requires to be rejected.
"We like to clarify that COREX technology as an alternate route for production of pig iron, the conventional one being the blast furnace technology. The basic difference between the two is that in case of corex the plant has been designed into 2 vessels, namely the reduction shaft furnace and the metter gassifier. The reduction shaft furnace performs the activities of the upper part of the blast furnace and the melter gassifier of the gas furnace. Corex is a trade mark of VA1, Austria; otherwise there is no other basic differences of this technology from that of the blast furnace except that good amount of oxygen is used in Corex and hot air blast in blast furnace."

6.3 After remand, they have again considered the matter and ultimately opined as under;

"Corex is an alternative route to blast furnace iron making producing the same product based on similar principles. Initially the Corex process was known as KR process, which was developed by Korf Engineering of Germany. A pilot plant of 8 tph (200 tpd) was put up jointly by Korf Engineering and Voest Alpine at Kehl, Germany known as KR Pilot Plant. Initially technology sale rights were divided between Korf Engineering and Voest Alpine. In due course, the complete technology rights were purchased by Voest Alpine who changed the name of the process to Corex process and registered its Trade Mark to avoid confusion between KR process and Corex Process."