Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 997 (GUJ)

Fairdeal Supplies Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

2024-04-24

BHARGAV D.KARIA, NIRAL R.MEHTA

body2024
JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notification No.69/2000- Customs dated 19th May 2000. 2. By the Notification No.69/2000, the Central Government imposed anti-dumping duty on Metcoke (Metallurgical Code) falling under Heading No.27.04 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short, “the Act”), originating from China P.R. and imported into India of the amount equivalent to the rate indicated in the Notification (in Dollar terms) converted into Indian currency with reference to the rate of exchange in force as on date on which the bill of entry is presented under Section 46 of the Customs Act. 3. The petitioner is a private limited company wholly registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of importing Low Ash Metallurgical Code (Metcoke) for the purpose of trade. The Metcode is classified under Heading 27.04 of the Schedule of the Act and are subject to basic customs duty at 15% ad valorem and auxiliary duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem. Metcoke is an important output for a number of industries including foundries, soda ash etc. There is a continuous requirement for importing Metcoke because the capacity of manufacturing Metcoke in India is limited to an installed capacity of only about 4 Lac Metric Tonne, which is not sufficient to meet the demand of over 2 Million Tonne. 4. The Central Government, by Notification No.2/95-Customs (N.T.) dated 1st January 1995, made the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination for Injury) Rules, 1995 (for short, “the Rules”). 5. The Rules provides for appointment of Designated Authority in order to investigate by the authority to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping upon receipt of a written application by or on behalf of domestic industry and for submission of final findings by such authority,inter alia, with regard to export price, normal value and margin of dumping of the said Article and levy of anti-dumping duty on the basis of such findings, by the Central Government. 6. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that sometime in 1997, M/s. B.L.A. Industries and Industries and Commerce Association, Dhanbad, with the support of Southern Fuels Limited filed an application before the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce alleging dumping of Metcoke by the exporters from the People’s Republic of China. 7. The Designated Authority, on the basis of such application, initiated an investigation into the alleged dumping of Metcoke vide Notification dated 28th August 1997 for a period of investigation of 12 months from 1st April 1996 to 31st March 1997. 8. The Association and others contested the aforesaid application on the ground that the applicants did not have the requisite standing to file the application. During the course of investigation, 7 exporters from the People’s Republic of China furnished information in response to the exporter’s questionnaire sent by the Designated Authority. 9. The Designated Authority published preliminary findings on the investigation on 20th March 1998 and arrived at a conclusion that Metcoke from China was being dumped and had caused material injury to the domestic producer in India. 10. The Designated Authority recommended the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping duty of Rs.1800 per Metric Tonne. The Central Government, accepting such recommendations by Notification No.22/1998-Cus dated 6th May 1998, levied provisional anti-dumping duty of Rs.1800 per Metric Tonne on Metcoke imported from China. 11. The Designated Authority, after further Notification, notified its final findings by Notification dated 27th August 1998 and came to the conclusion that, (i) Metcoke with Ash content of 15% and below produced domestically is like Article to that of LAMC imported from China. (ii) The applicant had the standing to file the application. (iii) That anti-dumping duty was leviable on all imports of LAMC from China irrespective of the Ash content being the difference between Rs.4673 and the landed price of the imports per Metric Tonne. 12. The Designated Authority, thereafter, issued a corrigendum on 2nd September 1998, which modified the amount of antidumping duty as equal to the difference between Rs.4673 and the landed price of import subject to minimum of anti-dumping duty of Rs.692 per Metric Tonne. 13. The Central Government implemented the recommendations of the Designated Authority by issuing Notification No.81/98-Cus dated 27th October 1998 introducing a minimum amount of antidumping duty. 14. 13. The Central Government implemented the recommendations of the Designated Authority by issuing Notification No.81/98-Cus dated 27th October 1998 introducing a minimum amount of antidumping duty. 14. Being aggrieved by the Notification No.81/1998, the appeal was filed by the aggrieved party against the final findings of the Designated Authority before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short, “the CEGAT”) around February 1999. It was disposed of by CEGAT vide final order dated 21st January 2000 upholding the order of the Designated Authority. However, the CEGAT modified the quantum and computation of anti-dumping duty, as provided in the final findings, to levy of fixed duty in terms of US Dollars. 15. During the aforesaid period, various traders like the petitioner had imported Metcoke which landed at different ports in the country. The Kandla Commissionerate sought to levy the antidumping duty on the basis of the final findings of the Designated Authority though the same was not accepted by the Central Government till the relevant date of imports. The Kandla Commissionerate, on the basis of the assumption that there was over invoicing of the concerned party, adopted the provisional value without any basis or investigation as US $ 65 per Metric Tonne and anti-dumping duty was demanded by taking the same as base value. This issue was subject matter of Special Civil Application No.1256 of 2000 filed by the petitioner, which is disposed of by this Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. C. Patel and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. B. Majmudar) vide order dated 4th July 2000 in view of the Notification No.69/2000 dated 19th May 2000. 16. The Central Government, vide impugned Notification No.69/2000 dated 19th May 2000, accepted the modification in the final finding vide order of the CEGAT dated 21st January 2000 by determining the levy of anti-dumping duty of US$ 24.95 per Metric Ton on the goods imported under Serial No.7 of the table from other exporters in China P.R. The Central Government also exempted import of Metcoke by a manufacturer of Pig Iron or Steel using a blast furnace in the said Notification. 17. 17. Being aggrieved by the impugned Notification No.69/2000 dated 19th May 2000, various representations were made by various affected parties like Rajkot Engineering Association highlighting such industries which are generally small scale units as the price of the Metcoke was increased by almost Rs.1600 per Metric Ton during the said period. 18. The petitioner also addressed a representation to the Central Government on 5th June 2000 complaining against the excessive and discriminatory nature of levy of the anti-dumping duty. 19. This Court (Coram : Honourable Mr. Justice B. C. Patel and Honourable Mr. Justice C. K. Buch), vide order dated 30th August 2000, passed the following order: “1. The petitioner has challenged a notification issued by the Central Government in superseession of the notification issued earlier on 27th October, 1998 with regard to anti-dumping duty. Under the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment & Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules), issued in exercise of powers conferred by subsection (6) of section 9(A) and Subsection (2) of section 9(B) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and in supersession of earlier Rules issued in 1985. Procedure has been prescribed that there should be initiation of investigation under Rule 5. Guidelines are provided in rule 6 which is known as principles governing the investigation. Some confidential information can be taken into consideration as provided in rule 7. Accuracy of information and the territory of other specified countries are also required to be taken into consideration depending upon the facts as provided in rules 8 and 9. There must be determination of normal value, export price and margin of dumping and determination of injury. On the basis of this, there must be a preliminary finding in view of rule 12 and there may be provisional duty in rule 13. After the termination of investigation, final finding as per rule 17 is to be arrived at and the designated authority has to submit the same to the Central Government and it is thereafter that within a period of three months of the publication of final findings by the designated authority under rule 17, the Central Government may impose by a notification in the Official Gazette, upon importation into India of the article covered by the final finding, anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping as determined under rule 17. 2. 2. In the instant case, it appears that before the notification was published, appeals were preferred against the final findings dated 27.8.98 and corrigendum dated 2.9.98 before the Central Excise Gold Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as "the CEGAT") by Pig Iron Manufacturers Association, (reported in 2000 (110) E.L.T. 67 (Tribunal)). Order was made by the Tribunal allowing the appeal and certain directions were made on 21.1.2000, which order was carried in appeal before the Apex Court by Saurashtra Chemicals Limited. The decision of the Apex Court is reported in 2000 (118) ELT 305 (S.C.). The Apex Court judgment reads as under. “We see no reason to entertain these special leave petitions. It is perfectly clear now that we have seen the provision of the Act that the order of the Designated Authority is purely recommendatory. The appeal lies against the determination and that determination has to be made by the Central Government. For this reason, we decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and dismiss the special leave petitions." 3. On 19.5.2000, after the decision of the Apex Court, the Central Government has issued a notification in supersession of earlier notification dated 27.10.98. Obviously, the authorities were aware about the decision of the Apex Court. This Court at the time of admission on 13.6.2000, after hearing the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents made an order. The Court while passing the order, directed the respondents to file reply within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the process. Mr. Pandya, learned advocate waived service of notice on behalf of respondent no.1 - Union of India and direction was given to file reply within a period of three weeks from 13.6.2000. Thus, all the respondents were aware that the reply is to be filed. However, till today, reply is not filed. Learned advocate appearing for the Union of India submitted that as the CEGAT has made an order in exercise of power conferred under section 9(C) of the Act, the government has taken into consideration the decision and has issued a notification. However, till today, reply is not filed. Learned advocate appearing for the Union of India submitted that as the CEGAT has made an order in exercise of power conferred under section 9(C) of the Act, the government has taken into consideration the decision and has issued a notification. We are afraid that in view of the Apex Court judgment, this argument cannot be accepted as in clear terms it is pointed out that the order of the designated authority is purely recommendatory and appeal would lie against the determination which has been made by the Central Government. In the instant case, there was no determination by the Central Government. Prima facie, we are of the view that as the judgment of the Tribunal has not been confirmed, no reliance could have been placed for the purpose of issuance of notification. It is for the Central Government to accept the recommendation made by the designated authority. That authority submitted its recommendation and the government issued a notification on 27.10.98. 4. Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned advocate, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of the CEGAT cannot be considered as recommendatory, more particularly when the Apex Court has held that the appeal was not competent before the CEGAT. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we stay the subsequent notification and direct the petitioner to make payment for the consignment under protest as per the notification dated 27.10.98. For the balance amount, an undertaking shall be filed in the court. We fix the hearing of this matter on 12th September, 2000 at the request of Mr. Pandya, learned counsel for the Union of India.” 20. The Designated Authority, after considering information placed by various sectors of the industry including the fact that Low Ash Metcoke was the base raw material consumed by Pig Iron Industries, Stainless Steel, Ferro-Alloys Industries, etc. and imposition of high level of duty would render such industries uneconomic and incompetitive resulting into closure of Mini Blast furnace, recorded in the final findings, but was not expressly commented or taken note of the said fact. 21. On perusal of the preliminary findings and the final findings of the Designated Authority and the Notification imposing provisional duty and final duty, no exemption to any industry was recommended and in fact, the Designated Authority rejected the submissions of the Pig Iron manufacturing units in not levying the anti-dumping duty. 21. On perusal of the preliminary findings and the final findings of the Designated Authority and the Notification imposing provisional duty and final duty, no exemption to any industry was recommended and in fact, the Designated Authority rejected the submissions of the Pig Iron manufacturing units in not levying the anti-dumping duty. However, such request was accepted by the Central Government by exempting the Pig Iron manufacturing units from payment of anti-duping duty levied on the imported Metcoke from China P.R. by exercising powers under Section 9A(1) and Section 3(6) of the Act and Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the subsequent Notification dated 19th May 2000 was subsequently revoked on 21st January 2004. 22. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which, vide order dated 11th May 2000, held that the appeal before the CEGAT, in which the order was passed, was, in fact, premature in absence of any determination by the Central Government. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 24th March 2008, held that its earlier order dated 21st January 2000 was inadvertent due to oversight and incorrect and the appeal before the CEGAT was competent. 23. In view of the above, the order of the CEGAT was revived and amendment was sought by the petitioner incorporating the challenge to the findings of the CEGAT also as a part of the challenge to the principal Notification. 24. The challenge to the Notification accepting the findings of the CEGAT would encompass the challenge to the findings in the order since the order of the CEGAT would itself be recommendatory under the scheme of the anti-duping duty, until the acceptance thereof by the Central Government. 25. 24. The challenge to the Notification accepting the findings of the CEGAT would encompass the challenge to the findings in the order since the order of the CEGAT would itself be recommendatory under the scheme of the anti-duping duty, until the acceptance thereof by the Central Government. 25. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner came to know that during the period from the Notification of the Central Government dated 27th October 1998 and the impugned Notification dated 18th May 2000 and the impugned Notification dated 19th May 2000 implementing the order of the CEGAT, a meeting was held between the Secretary (Steel), Government of India and the representatives of Mini-Blast furnace producers of Metcoke on 25th November 1999, is permissible in law, wherein an agreement is purported to have been arrived at between the representatives of the domestic industries and consumers of Chinese Metcoke,wherein in-effect, Metcoke Manufacturers Association withdrew their demand of levy of anti-dumping duty on Metcoke imported by blast furnace industry in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswal Neco Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam reported in 2015 (17) SCC 769. 26. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi with learned advocate Mr. Anuj Trivedi for the petitioner submitted that the agreement between the Central Government and the Manufacturers having Mini Blast furnaces producers is not permissible under the law and such agreement undermines the entire investigation and determination of injury by the Designated Authority. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition in the above context of facts. 27. It was submitted that the entire investigation by the Designated Authority proceeded on the basis of injury to the domestic industries i.e. manufacturers mainly on the ground that the users of Metcoke i.e. Pig Iron manufacturers, Steel industry, Ferro-Alloys Industry using Mini Blast furnace, were utilizing the imported Chinese metcoke, which was being dumped into India and thereby, the domestic manufacturers suffered reduced demand and also lost the opportunity to increase its production because the demand of the consumers was being met with by Chinese imports. 28. 28. It was submitted that however, by an agreement recorded in the minutes of the meeting dated 25th November 1999, the grievance of the domestic industry was substantially given up and the Central Government adopting the concession while accepting the final findings vide the impugned Notification dated 19th May 2000 overlooking that the very substratum of the petition of the domestic industry for the levy of anti-dumping duty was lost by the concession and the findings of injury would undergo a substantial change if the aforesaid parameter of injury by the users of Metcoke importing Chinese Metcoke was excluded. It was submitted that the Pig Iron and Steel Industry is utilizing the blast furnace consuming approximately 75% to 80% of the Metcoke imported from China, however, the Central Government mechanically incorporated the consensus arrived at by the two parties without application of mind to the issue whether there was any injury still caused to the domestic industry and the levy of anti-dumping duty was still necessary in the changed circumstances. 29. It was submitted that the domestic industry, which has contested the case of the users including Pig Iron manufacturers in a quasi-judicial proceedings, were estopped from taking a contrary stand at the stage of issuance of the Notification by the Central Government and the Central Government, on the basis of such agreement, could not have modified the final findings to the extent of excluding the Pig Iron manufacturers from levy of anti-dumping duty without a fresh investigation or at least providing an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein a substantial grievance raised before the Designated Authority was withdrawn at a subsequent stage. 30. It was submitted that the exclusion from the levy of antidumping duty upon users of Metcoke in the manner provided in the Notification amounts to a discriminatory levy of anti-dumping duty on imports of Chinese Metcoke into India and is violative of Rule 19 of the Rules, which mandates imposition of duty on non-discriminatory basis. 31. 30. It was submitted that the exclusion from the levy of antidumping duty upon users of Metcoke in the manner provided in the Notification amounts to a discriminatory levy of anti-dumping duty on imports of Chinese Metcoke into India and is violative of Rule 19 of the Rules, which mandates imposition of duty on non-discriminatory basis. 31. It was submitted that incorporation of the agreement between the domestic industry and some of the parties to the investigation in the determination by the Central Government vide the impugned Notification substantially modifies the final findings and the order of the CEGAT, without any challenge to the same, is not permissible under the scheme of the relevant Act and the Rules. It was submitted that the Central Government does not have the power of granting exemption in respect of levy of anti-dumping duty as the same is a trade remedy, which cannot be equated with customs duty. 32. It was submitted that the scheme of levy of anti-dumping duty contemplates only limited instances where anti-dumping duty need not be levied, inter alia, under Rule 15 of the Rules. 33. Reference was made to Section 9A(8) of the Act, which makes certain provisions of the Act applicable, does not specifically include the power of exemption though the said sub-section uses the words “including”, the substantive power of exemption cannot be read as being impliedly included, more particularly, in the context of Section 3(12) and Section 3A(4), which is now omitted, of the Customs Tariff Act, where the word “exemption” is specifically used when intended to confer such power. 34. It was submitted that use of the phrase “as far as may be” in Section 9A(8) of the Customs Tariff Act only means to the extent possible. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bengal Chemists and Druggists Association vs. Kalyan Chowdhury reported in (2018) 3 SCC 41 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the expression “as far as may be” only means to the extent possible if not possible, obviously the Limitation Act would not apply. It was, therefore, submitted that if not possible, the Customs Act, 1962 would not apply. 35. It was, therefore, submitted that if not possible, the Customs Act, 1962 would not apply. 35. It was submitted that in view of Rules 19 and 15 read with the scheme of levy of anti-dumping duty under GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), a power of exemption cannot be included by virtue of Section 9A(8) of the Customs Tariff Act. 36. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi submitted that without prejudice to the submissions made, the respondents have not demonstrated its satisfaction that it was necessary in the public interest to grant exemption to Pig Iron manufacturers, as required under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. 37. It was submitted that the impugned Notification is, therefore, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the scheme and the provisions of the Act and the Rules and unconstitutional and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 38. It was submitted that the respondents are not entitled to claim any interest on the anti-dumping duty payable in the event of dismissal of this petition since there is no provision for levy of interest in the Customs Tariff Act and the Rules. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. & C., Surat-I vs. Ukai Pradesh Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd. reported in (2011) 271 ELT 32. 39. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondent No.1 and learned advocate Mr. Pratik Khubchandani for the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 submitted that as per the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Government has the power to grant exemption from duty. 40. It was submitted that as per sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, if the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt generally either absolutely or subject to such conditions (to be fulfilled before or after clearance) as may be specified in the notification goods of any specified description from the whole or any part of duty of customs leviable thereon. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned Notification, granting exemption to the Pig Iron manufacturers from levy of anti-dumping duty, is within the power of the Central Government. 41. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswal Neco Ltd (supra). It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned Notification, granting exemption to the Pig Iron manufacturers from levy of anti-dumping duty, is within the power of the Central Government. 41. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswal Neco Ltd (supra). It was submitted that in the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, challenge was to the levy of anti-dumping duty prior to the impugned Notification No.69/2000 dated 19th May 2000 on the ground that as the appellant was exempted from payment of anti-dumping duty, no anti-dumping duty or interest was payable by the appellant. In that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after analyzing the various Notifications, including the impugned Notification dated 19th May 2000 in relation to the exemption granted by the said Notification on the basis of the minutes of the meeting dated 25th November 1999 referred to hereinabove, held that the appellant was not liable to pay interest and the additional anti-dumping duty would not partake the character of customs duty and that is, in addition to the customs duty, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also took notice of the subsequent amendment with effect from 2003 in Section 3(2) and Section 3A(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, without going into the merits, as to whether such amendment was clarificatory or otherwise, holding it to be retrospective. 42. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and others reported in (2011) 1 SCC 236 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the question as to whether a manufacturer of a specified final product falling under the schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is eligible to get the benefit of exemption from remission of excise duty on specified intermediate goods as per Notification No.121/94-CE dated 11th August 1994, if captively consumed for the manufacture of final products on the ground that the record kept by it at the recipient end would indicate its “intended use” and “substantial compliance” of the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. While deciding the question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that construction is required to be given to the exemption clause. While deciding the question, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that construction is required to be given to the exemption clause. It was held that if the exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with and the mandatory requirements of those conditions must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, though at times, some latitude can be shown, if there is failure to comply with some requirements which are directory in nature, the non-compliance of which would not affect the essence or substance of the Notification granting exemption. After considering the doctrine of substantial compliance and “intended use”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur vs. J. K. Synthetics reported in (2000) 10 SCC 393 and the decision in the case of Thermax Private Ltd vs. Collector of Customs (Bombay), New Customs House reported in (1992) 4 SCC 440 and held that both these decisions cannot be applied in all facts situation and it is declared that the findings recorded in those decisions would be confined to the facts of the said cases, which arises out of the said cases only as the issue involved was whether the exemption from payment of the central excise duty was available to the populated Printed Circuit Board manufactured and cleared by the assessee under Notification No.48/94-CE dated 1st March 1994. It was, therefore, held that there are mandatory requirements for claiming the exemption from duty and such mandatory requirements are required to be available to avail the benefit of exemption. 43. It was submitted that exemption granted to Pig Iron manufacturers would be under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar and Company and others reported in (2018) 9 SCC 1 , wherein while interpreting the exemption Notification, it was held that exemption Notification should be interpreted strictly and in case of ambiguity in a charging provisions, the benefit must necessary go in favour of the assessee, but the same is not true for an exemption Notification, wherein the benefit of ambiguity must be strictly interpreted in favour of the Revenue. It was, therefore, submitted that it is within the domain and jurisdiction of the Central Government to grant exemption from levy of anti-dumping duty upon one side sector or segment of the domestic industry in the public interest. 44. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considering the documentary evidence placed on record, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the Central Government could not have granted exemption to the Pig Iron manufacturers from levy of anti-dumping duty, is required to be considered. 45. Section 25(1) of the Customs Act provides for “power to grant exemption”, which reads as under: “25. Power to grant exemption from duty. (1) If the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt generally either absolutely or subject to such conditions (to be fulfilled before or after clearance) as may be specified in the notification goods of any specified description from the whole or any part of duty of customs leviable thereon.” 46. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the anti-dumping duty would be a part of the duty, which is covered by Section 25(1) of the Customs Act or not. The anti-dumping duty is leviable under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act read with Section 3(2) and Section 3A(2) of the said Act, which reads as under: SECTION 9A OF THE CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT: “9A. Anti-dumping duty on dumped articles. – (1) Where any article is exported by an exporter or producer from any country or territory (hereinafter in this section referred to as the exporting country or territory) to India at less than its normal value, then, upon the importation of such article into India, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, impose an anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping in relation to such article. Explanation. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, - (a) “margin of dumping”, in relation to an article, means the difference between its export price and its normal value; (b) “export price”, in relation to an article, means the price of the article exported from the exporting country or territory and in cases where there is no export price or where the export price is unreliable because of association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer or a third party, the export price may be constructed on the basis of the price at which the imported articles are first resold to an independent buyer or if the article is not resold to an independent buyer, or not resold in the condition as imported, on such reasonable basis as may be determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); (c) “normal value”, in relation to an article, means – (i) the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like article when destined for consumption in the exporting country or territory as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or (ii) when there are no sales of the like article in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, or when because of the particular market situation or low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country or territory, such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the normal value shall be either – (a) comparable representative price of the like article when exported from the exporting country or territory to an appropriate third country as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6); or (b) the cost of production of the said article in the country of origin along with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs, and for profits, as determined in accordance with the rules made under sub-section (6): Provided that in the case of import of the article from a country other than the country of origin and where the article has been merely transhipped through the country of export or such article is not produced in the country of export or there is no comparable price in the country of export, the normal value shall be determined with reference to its price in the country of origin. (1A) Where the Central Government, on such inquiry as it may consider necessary, is of the opinion that circumvention of antidumping duty imposed under sub-section (1) has taken place, either by altering the description or name or composition of the article subject to such anti-dumping duty or by import of such article in an unassembled or disassembled form or by changing the country of its origin or export or in any other manner, whereby the antidumping duty so imposed is rendered ineffective, it may extend the anti-dumping duty to such article or an article originating in or exported from such country, as the case may be 6 from such date, not earlier than the date of initiation of the inquiry, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. .. (1B) Where the Central Government, on such inquiry as it may consider necessary, is of the opinion that absorption of antidumping duty imposed under sub-section (1) has taken place whereby the antidumping duty so imposed is rendered ineffective, it may modify such duty to counter the effect of such absorption, from such date, not earlier than the date of initiation of the inquiry, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "absorption of anti-dumping duty" is said to have taken place, (a) if there is a decrease in the export price of an article without any commensurate change in the cost of production of such article or export price of such article to countries other than India or resale price in India of such article imported from the exporting country or territory; or (b) under such other circumstances as may be provided by rules.. (2) The Central Government may, pending the determination in accordance with the provisions of this section and the rules made thereunder of the normal value and the margin of dumping in relation to any article, impose on the importation of such article into India an anti-dumping duty on the basis of a provisional estimate of such value and margin and if such antidumping duty exceeds the margin as so determined:- (a) the Central Government shall, having regard to such determination and as soon as may be after such determination, reduce such anti-dumping duty; and (b) refund shall be made of so much of the anti-dumping duty which has been collected as is in excess of the antidumping duty as so reduced. (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2), a notification issued under sub-section (1) or any anti-dumping duty imposed under sub-section (2) shall not apply to articles imported by a hundred per cent. export-oriented undertaking or a unit in a special economic zone, unless, (i) it is specifically made applicable in such notification or to such undertaking or unit; or (ii) such article is either cleared as such into the domestic tariff area or used in the manufacture of any goods that are cleared into the domestic tariff area, in which case, anti-dumping duty shall be imposed on that portion of the article so cleared or used, as was applicable when it was imported into India. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) the expression "hundred per cent. export-oriented undertaking" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (i) of Explanation 2 to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944); (b) the expression "special economic zone" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (za) of section 2 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (28 of 2005).. (3) If the Central Government, in respect of the dumped article under inquiry, is of the opinion that – (i) there is a history of dumping which caused injury or that the importer was, or should have been, aware that the exporter practices dumping and that such dumping would cause injury; and (ii) the injury is caused by massive dumping of an article imported in a relatively short time which in the light of the timing and the volume of imported article dumped and other circumstances is likely to seriously under-mine the remedial effect of the antidumping duty liable to be levied, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, levy anti-dumping duty retrospectively from a date prior to the date of imposition of anti-dumping duty under sub-section (2) but not beyond ninety days from the date of notification under that sub-section, and notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, such duty shall be payable at such rate and from such date as may be specified in the notification. (4) The anti-dumping duty chargeable under this section shall be in addition to any other duty imposed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force. (5) The anti-dumping duty imposed under this section shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition: Provided that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period of five years and such further period shall commence from the date of order of such extension: Provided further that where a review initiated before the expiry of the aforesaid period of five years has not come to a conclusion before such expiry, the anti-dumping duty may continue to remain in force pending the outcome of such a review for a further period not exceeding one year. [Provided also that if the said duty is revoked temporarily, the period of such revocation shall not exceed one year at a time.] (6) The margin of dumping as referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall, from time to time, be ascertained and determined by the Central Government, after such inquiry as it may consider necessary and the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for the purposes of this section, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, such rules may provide for the manner in which articles liable for any antidumping duty under this section may be identified, and for the manner in which the export price and the normal value of, and the margin of dumping in relation to, such articles may be determined and for the assessment and collection of such anti-dumping duty. (7) Every notification issued under this section shall, as soon as may be after it is issued, be laid before each House of Parliament.” SECTION 3(2) OF THE CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT: “3. Levy of additional duty equal to excise duty.- (2) For the purpose of calculating under sub-sections (1) and (3), the additional duty on any imported article, where such duty is leviable at any percentage of its value, the value of the imported article shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), be the aggregate of — (i) the value of the imported article determined under subsection (1) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) or the tariff value of such article fixed under subsection (2) of that section, as the case may be; and (ii) any duty of customs chargeable on that article under section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and any sum chargeable on that article under any law for the time being in force as an addition to, and in the same manner as, a duty of customs, but not including the duty referred to in sub-section (1).” SECTION 3A(2) OF THE CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT: “3A. Special additional duty.- * * * (2) For the purpose of calculating under this section the special additional duty on any imported article, the value of the imported article shall, notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 or section 3 of this Act, be the aggregate of- (i) the value of the imported article determined under subsection (1) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 or the tariff value of such article fixed under sub-section (2) of that section, as the case may be; (ii) any duty of customs chargeable on that article under section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, and any sum chargeable on that article under any law for the time being in force as an addition, and in the same manner as, a duty of customs, but not including the special additional duty referred to in sub-section (1); and (iii) the additional duty of customs chargeable on that article under section 3 of this Act.” 47. The Designated Authority has recorded the final findings in the Notification dated 27th August 1998, which reads as under: “J. FINAL FINDINGS 80. The Authority in view of foregoing concludes that: Irrespective of the fact that the members of ICA can produce metcoke with less than 15% ash content, the Authority is inclined to agree with the exporters/ importers that only metcoke with ash content of 15% and below is a like article to the metcoke imported from China RP. Based on the information available with the Authority at the time of initiation, the petitioner had the standing to file the petition on behalf of the domestic industry. The petitioner satisfied the criterion for standing at the time of preliminary findings, considering the scope of the "like article", as defined in the preliminary findings. Petitioner now has support of 100% of those producers production of whose constitutes "like article". The Authority has constructed the normal value of metcoke in China PR based on the information furnished by the co- operative exporters and the information available with the Authority in view of incomplete and insufficient response by the exporters/ producers from China PR in spite of specific requests for information. Metcoke originating in or exported from China PR has been exported to India below its normal value. The domestic industry has suffered material injury. Metcoke originating in or exported from China PR has been exported to India below its normal value. The domestic industry has suffered material injury. Injury has been caused to the domestic industry by the exports originating in or exported from the subject countries. 81. The Authority confirms the preliminary findings with regard to imposition of Anti-dumping duty and recommends imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on all imports of metallurgical coke originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China. The anti dumping duty shall be the difference between Rs.4673 and the landed price of imports per MT. 82. Landed value of imports for the purpose shall be the assessable value as determined by the customs under the Customs Act, 1962 and all duties of customs except duties levied under Section 3 and 3A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.” 48. By the impugned Notification dated 19th May 2000, the Central Government adopted the recommendations based on the order of the CEGAT, whereby the CEGAT suggested levy of antidumping duty in US Dollar terms, which was accepted by the Central Government vide impugned Notification. However, the Central Government, in the said Notification, granted exemption to imports of Metcoke by the manufacturers of Pig Iron or Steel using a blast furnace, if they follow the procedure set out in the Rules, 1996. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswal Neco Ltd. (supra), the Central Government has considered the effect of the Notification No.69/2000 and approved to the fact that such Notification is applicable retrospectively and the manufacturers of Pig Iron, Steel using the blast furnace were not even liable to pay interest as no provisions for levy of interest is provided either in the Customs Act or in the Customs Tariff Act. The Notification No.69/2000 was further amended by Notification No.5/2003-Customs dated 3rd January 2003, which reads as under: “Notification No.5/2003-Customs 3rd January, 2003 In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section (1) of Section 9A rad with sub-section (6) of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) and sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, makes the following further amendment in the notification of the Government of India, in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No.69/2000-Customs, dated the 19th May, 2000, namely:- In the said Notification, in paragraph seven, after the Table, for the words beginning with “Nothing contained in this notification” and ending with the word and figures “Rules, 1996”, the following shall be substituted, namely:- “Nothing contained in this notification shall apply to imports of metcoke a) by a manufacturer of pig iron or steel using a blast furnace or b) by a manufacturer of steel using COREX technology or c) by a manufacturer of pig iron using COREX technology or d) by a manufacturer of ferro alloys If he follows the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996”. 49. Thereafter, vide Notification No.75/2003-Customs dated 2nd May 2003, the Notification No.69/2000 was revoked with effect from 5th May 2004 by extending the anti-dumping duty for another one year and the same was rescinded by Notification No.22/2004- Customs dated 21st January 2004, on being satisfied, it was necessary in the public interest so to do. 50. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of TATA Chemicals Limited (2) vs. Union of India and others reported in (2008) 17 SCC 180 , clarified that the order dated 24th August 2000 passed in TATA Chemicals Ltd (1) vs. Union of India reported in (2007) 15 SCC 596 to the fact that the decision in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd vs. Union of India reported in (2009) 17 SCC 529 was on account of the fact that the relevant aspects were not brought to the notice of the Bench and held that the appeals before the CEGAT were maintainable when the challenge was to the determination made. In view of the above fact that the appeal was maintainable before the CEGAT, the Central Government was, thereafter, justified in passing the impugned Notification No.69/2000 dated 19th May 2000, which reads as under: “AND WHEREAS the Designated Authority has accepted the above judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9A read with sub-section (6) of section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act and sub- section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance( Department of Revenue) No. 81/98-Customs, dated the 27th October, 1998 [G.S.R. 644 (E), dated the 27th October, 1998], except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby imposes on metcoke falling under heading No. 27.04 of the First Schedule to the said Customs Tariff Act, originating in, or exported from, China PR and imported into India, by the exporters mentioned in column(2) of the Table hereto annexed, an anti-dumping duty of an amount equivalent to the rate indicated in column (3) of the said Table, converted into Indian currency with reference to the rate of exchange as in force on the date on which a bill of entry is presented under section 46 of the said Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) Sr. No. Name of exporter Rate per metric tonne (1) (2) (3) 1. China National Coal Industry Import./Export (Group) Corporation US $ 18.35 2. China National Mineral Import and Export Corporation US $ 24.51 3. Shanxi Coal Import Export Group Corporation (Minmetal Group) US $ 19.22 4. Ningxia Xiacheng Import & Export Corporation US $ 24.95 5. China North Industries Corporation US $ 22.69 6. Shanghai Pacific Chemicals (Group) Corporation Ltd. US $ 19.22 Nothing contained in this notification shall apply to imports of metcoke by a manufacturer of pig iron or steel using a blast furnace if he follows the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. Shanghai Pacific Chemicals (Group) Corporation Ltd. US $ 19.22 Nothing contained in this notification shall apply to imports of metcoke by a manufacturer of pig iron or steel using a blast furnace if he follows the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. Explanation:- For the purposes of this notification, the expression “rate of exchange” shall mean the rate of exchange notified by the Central Government under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of subsection( 3) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962). 51. It would, therefore, be necessary to refer to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswal Neco Ltd. (supra), wherein it is observed and held as under: “13. The bone of contention in the present appeal is the last paragraph of this Notification. 14. It is clear that under Rule 20(2)(a) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment And Collection of Antidumping Duty on Dumped Articles and For Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, where a provisional duty has been levied and where the designated authority has recorded a final finding of injury or threat of injury and the further finding that the effect of imports in the absence of provisional duty would have led to injury, the Anti-dumping duty may be levied from the date of imposition of provisional duty. In the present case, therefore, it will be noticed that the final Notification dated 27.10.1998 is said to come into force from the date of the first Notification dated 6.5.1998 imposing provisional duty in the present case. It is clear that as the final Notification dated 27.10.1998 has been superseded by the Notification dated 19.5.2000, the appellant would have had to pay Anti-dumping duty at the rate of US$ 24.95 per metric tonne as indisputably it falls within Item No.7 of the said Notification. 15. It will be noticed that the exception carved out in the Notification dated 19.5.2000 was pursuant to a minutes of meeting dated 25.11.1999 by the Secretary (Steel) and representatives of Mini Blast Furnace producers of Metallurgical Coke. 15. It will be noticed that the exception carved out in the Notification dated 19.5.2000 was pursuant to a minutes of meeting dated 25.11.1999 by the Secretary (Steel) and representatives of Mini Blast Furnace producers of Metallurgical Coke. These minutes of meeting state as follows:- “The Representatives of IMCOM (Indian Metallurgical Coke Manufacturers Association) said that IMCOM represents both the petitioners i.e. M/s. BLA Industries and Industries and Commerce Association in the anti dumping duty petition against import of metcoke of Chinese origin. They explained that while anti dumping duty was essential for the survival of the domestic coke producers, the blast furnaces have never been their principal customers and it was not their intention to harm the blast furnaces industry. 5. After detailed deliberations it was agreed between Indian Metallurgical Coke Manufacturers Association (IMCOM) and Association of Indian Mini Blast Furnaces (AIM) that the blast furnace units were not the principal market that the domestic coke producers cater to. The market to which the domestic coke producers cater to companies ferrous and non-ferrous foundries, ferro alloys producers, soda ash producers, zinc smelting units some other chemical units and various SSI units. 6. Since the imposition of the anti dumping duty the blast furnace units had to resort to import from expensive sources like Russia, Japan etc. In view of this it was suggested by the AIM that the blast furnace units could be exempted from paying ADD on import of metallurgical coke of Chinese origin, provided this import is for actual use by the blast furnace units. The list of blast furnace units which will be covered by this exemption is also enclosed. 7. Considering the financial difficulty of the members of AIM, IMCOM agreed that they have no objection if the government exempts the blast furnace industry from the purview of the anti-dumping duty. Metcoke will be imported under OGL with Actual user Conditions for blast furnace industry without ADD. IMCOM reiterated that while the continuation of the ADD on metcoke of Chinese origin is vital for the survival of the indigenous coke manufacturers they also agreed that the exemption of the blast furnace units from ADD was vital for their survival.” 16. Metcoke will be imported under OGL with Actual user Conditions for blast furnace industry without ADD. IMCOM reiterated that while the continuation of the ADD on metcoke of Chinese origin is vital for the survival of the indigenous coke manufacturers they also agreed that the exemption of the blast furnace units from ADD was vital for their survival.” 16. On reading these minutes it becomes clear that Anti-dumping duties that had been imposed upon the Blast Furnace Industry had an adverse impact upon the industry and that the intention of levying an Anti-dumping duty was not to harm their interests. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the said minutes in particular seem to suggest that the exemption that was contemplated by the minutes of such Blast Furnace units was something that could take place only in the future. 17. Quite apart from this, it is clear that no exception was carved out before 19.5.2000 in favour of Blast Furnace Manufacturers either when the provisional Anti-dumping duty was first imposed or when the final Notification dated 27.10.1998 was issued. It is clear that the last part of the Notification dated 19.5.2000 creating an exception in favour of persons like the appellant has no reference to the earlier proceedings in the case and is obviously intended to apply only prospectively. This is also clear from the language used in the said clause – ‘nothing contained in the Notification “shall apply to imports” …. Using a Blast Furnace “if he follows” the procedure set out in the Customs “import of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods” Rules, 1996’. The language of the aforesaid clause applies only in futuro and we are afraid that Shri Lakshmikumaran’s first argument must, therefore, fail. 52. As per above conspectus of law and for the foregoing reasons and the settled legal position that the Central Government is entitled to grant exemption while exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, no interference is called for in the impugned Notification No.69/2000 dated 19th May 2000 and this petition, to that extent, is, accordingly, dismissed. 53. As per the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner is clearing the goods on filing of the undertaking and/or bond,as this petition is dismissed, the interim relief stands vacated forthwith. 53. As per the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner is clearing the goods on filing of the undertaking and/or bond,as this petition is dismissed, the interim relief stands vacated forthwith. Therfore, so far as the liability of interest which may accrue, it was submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner if this petition is not entertained, then the petitioner may not be saddled with the liability of interest. In this context, it would be germane to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaswal Neco Ltd.(supra), wherein the issue of charging of anti-dumping duty payable by the appellant prior to the Notification No.69/2000 was confirmed and accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the context of levy of interest, has held, by approving the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. Goyal Traders reported in (2014) 302 ELT 529, as under: “24. In Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Goyal Traders, (2014) 302 ELT 529, the Gujarat High Court has held as under:- “17. In the present case, we find that prior to introduction of sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Act in the present form, there was no liability to pay interest on difference between finally assessed duty and provisionally assessed duty upon payment of which the assessee may have cleared the goods. It was only with effect from 13.7.2006 that such charging provision was introduced in the statute. Upon introduction therefor such provision created interest liability for the first time w.e.f. 13.7.2006. In absence of any indication in the statute itself either specifically or by necessary implication giving retrospective effect to such a statutory provision, we are of the opinion that the same cannot be applied to cases of provisional assessment which took place prior to the said date. Any such application would in our view amount to retrospective operation of the law.” We respectfully agree with the aforesaid view. In addition, it is clear that this Court has held that the levying of interest can only be by a substantive provision (See: J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. Commercial Taxes Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 276 at paragraph 16), thereby making it clear that such levy can only be prospective. 25. Further, in India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam, (1997) 6 SCC 479 , this Court held:- “11. 25. Further, in India Carbon Ltd. v. State of Assam, (1997) 6 SCC 479 , this Court held:- “11. Section 9(2-A) makes applicable to the assessment, reassessment, collection and enforcement of Central sales tax the provisions relating to offences and penalties contained in the State Acts as if the Central sales tax was a State sales tax. But Section 9(2-A) makes no reference to interest. 12. There is no substantive provision in the Central Act requiring the payment of interest on Central sales tax. There is, therefore, no substantive provision in the Central Act which obliges the assessee to pay interest on delayed payments of Central sales tax. 13. Now, the words "charging or payment of interest" in Section 9(2) occur in what may be called the latter part thereof. Section 9(2) authorises the sales tax authorities of a State to assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of the Central sales tax payable by a dealer as if it was payable under the State Act; this is the first part of Section 9(2). By the second part thereof, these authorities are empowered to exercise the powers they have under the State Act and the provisions of the State Act, including provisions relating to charging and payment of interest, apply accordingly. Having regard to what has been said in the case of Khemka & Co., it must be held that the substantive law that the States' sales tax authorities must apply is the Central Act. In such application, for procedural purposes alone, the provisions of the State Act are available. The provision relating to interest in the latter part of Section 9(2) can be employed by the States' sales tax authorities only if the Central Act makes a substantive provision for the levy and charge of interest on Central sales tax and only to that extent. There being no substantive provision in the Central Act requiring the payment of interest on Central sales tax the States' sales tax authorities cannot, for the purpose of collecting and enforcing payment of Central sales tax, charge interest thereon. 14. The requirement of the 1st respondent's sales tax authorities that the appellants should pay interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on delayed payment of Central sales tax under the provisions of Section 35(A) of the State Act must, therefore, be held to be bad in law.” 26. 14. The requirement of the 1st respondent's sales tax authorities that the appellants should pay interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on delayed payment of Central sales tax under the provisions of Section 35(A) of the State Act must, therefore, be held to be bad in law.” 26. Given the aforesaid, it is clear that no interest is chargeable on any of the customs duties that are payable on the facts of the present case.” 54. In view of the above, the petitioner would not be liable to pay any interest on the amount of anti-dumping duty, which would be leviable as per the Notification No.69/2000 dated 19th May 2000 till such levy was revoked by Notification No.22/2004 with effect from 2004 without any interest. 55. This petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is discharged to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. FURTHER ORDER At this stage, learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi submitted that the interim relief which is granted by this Court is operating till final disposal of this petition may be continued for 12 weeks. Considering the fact that this petition is pending since the year 2000, interim relief granted by this Court shall continue upto 31.07.2024.