2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 327

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Dharmesh Sharma, JJ
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE – Appellant
Versus
M/S APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED – Respondent
W.P.(C)-10641/2022

The jurisdiction of CESTAT to set aside an Office Memorandum became moot after the domestic industry withdrew their claims for Anti-Dumping Duty.

Headnote:(A) Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty - Applications for ADD filed by domestic industry - Final findings recommended by DGTR for ADD were set aside by the Central Government, leading to challenges before CESTAT - Domestic industry later withdrew their claims for ADD, rendering the petitions infructuous - Jurisdiction of CESTAT to set aside Office Memorandum became moot. (Paras 3-13)

(B) Jurisdiction - The question of whether CESTAT can set aside an Office Memorandum is moot due to the domestic industry's withdrawal of claims. (Paras 7, 12)

Facts of the case:
The domestic industry filed applications for ADD which were initially recommended by DGTR but later set aside by the Central Government. The domestic industry subsequently chose not to pursue the matter, leading to the current petitions being rendered infructuous.

Findings of Court:
The petitions are disposed of as infructuous due to the domestic industry's withdrawal of claims, with legal issues kept open for future adjudication.

Issues: The primary issue was whether CESTAT has jurisdiction to set aside an Office Memorandum, which became moot following the domestic industry's withdrawal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court accepted the domestic industry's position, leading to the conclusion that the petitions were no longer viable.

Result: Petitions disposed of as infructuous.