M/S. Cairn India Limited vs Union Of India & 6 on 8 September, 2015
as
well as the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of
Karur District Dyeing and Bleaching Factory Owners'
Association v. Assessing Officer, Textile Committee,
2009 (13) S.T.R. 317 (Madras). Secondly, on the question of
grant of interim relief, it was submitted that no prima facie
case has been made out by the petitioner. Reference was
made to the scheme of the rules to point out that the
Directorate General of Safeguards can, after giving its final
finding on investigation, review the need of imposition of
safeguard duty under rule 18 of the rules and that it has no
power to issue any clarification as sought for by the petitioner.
Referring to the communication dated 15th January, 2015 of the
Director General, it was submitted that the same is not a letter
of clarification and that he has only communicated the opinion
Page 6 of 12
HC-NIC Page 6 of 12 Created On Sat Sep 12 00:46:33 IST 2015
C/SCA/10934/2015 ORDER
of the two domestic industries and referred the matter to the
Board for further action. It was submitted that the three bills of
entry submitted by the petitioner have been assessed and
Order-In-Original had been passed confirming levy of
safeguard duty and the petitioner has failed in the appeal
preferred by it before the Appellate Commissioner. It was
submitted that insofar as the present bill of entry is concerned,
it has been filed in respect of similar goods for which it had
applied for reassessment and, therefore, can resort to the
same procedure in this case. It was submitted that the
petitioner has not made out any prima facie case for the
reason that the contention that a large number of bills of entry
would be filed is not borne out from the record. It was
contended that the letter of the Directorate General is not
clarificatory in nature; in any case under section 8A of the
Customs Tariff Act as well as the rules, there is no provision for
making any clarification as regards the notification issued by
the Central Government; the petitioner has an alternative
remedy under the Act to apply for reassessment and have
recourse to the appellate remedy; merely because a large
number of bills of entry may be filed in future is no reason not
to avail of the statutory remedy and that the petitioner is
required to undergo the statutory remedy prescribed under the
Act. It was also submitted that no irreparable injury is caused
to the petitioner as in the event it ultimately succeeds, it would
be entitled to refund, on the other hand, the amount paid by
the petitioner towards safeguard duty would be well utilised for
public welfare. It was, accordingly, urged that the petition may
not be admitted and no interim relief be granted.