W.P.(C)/13063/2023 of M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 26[th]March, 2025

+W.P.(C) 13063/2023 & CM APPLs. 51588/2023 & 17747/2025M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED.....Petitioner

Through:Appearance not given.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

.....Respondents

Through:Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. DipakRaj, Mr. Shubham Kr., Mr. Vipul Kr.And Ms. Garima Kr., Advocates.

CORAM:JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1.This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2.The present petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner-M/sReliance Industries Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,inter alia seeking implementation of anti-dumping duties in terms of the finalfindings dated 31st March, 2023 issued by the Respondent No. 2- Ministry ofCommerce and Industry, Department of Commerce (hereinafter, the‘Department’).

3.Vide order dated 31st March, 2023 the Department inter aliarecommended extension of the anti-dumping duty on imports of high tenacity

polyester yarn (hereinafter, ‘goods’) originating in or exported from China.4.A brief background of the present case is that on 9th July, 2018 theDepartment imposed anti-dumping duties for period of five years videNotification No. 35/2018-Customs (anti dumping duty) dated 9th July, 2018on the goods originating in or exported from China. This imposition wasbased on the recommendation made by the Department through its finalfindings No. 6/12/2017-DGAD dated 24th May, 2018.

5.It is further stated that anti circumvention investigation videNotification F. No. 7/9/2022-DGTR dated 27th July, 2022 was initiated basedon an application filed by the Petitioner. Thereafter, an oral hearing wasconducted on 9th November, 2022. On 31st March, 2023 the Department interalia held that the Chinese producers have been circumventing the existinganti-dumping duty imposed on the goods. Further, the Departmentrecommended extension of anti-dumping duty imposed on the goods from thedate of issuance of notification by the Central Government.

6.It is the case of the Petitioner that the three months time prescribedunder Rule 18 of the Anti-Dumping Rules for the Central Government to takea decision on the recommendation made by the Department has expired on30th June, 2023. Further, in the writ petition, the stand of Petitioners is that,non-issuance of any notification within period of 3 months from the date offinal findings by the Central Government constitutes deemed decision.

7.However, the stand of the Petitioner now is that the domestic industryno longer insists on the imposition of anti dumping duty in respect of thegoods and therefore, the Petitioner does not press the present petition.

8.In view of the above position, the petition is disposed of as infructuousbinding the Petitioner to its stand that it no longer insists on imposition of anti

dumping duty in respect of the subject goods.

PRATHIBA M. SINGHJUDGE

MARCH 26, 2025/nd/rks

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTAJUDGE