Anti-dumping order upheld

LEGAL DIGEST

The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal of Rishiroop Polymers Pvt Ltd, which had challenged the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the company.

The designated authority under the Customs Tariff Act recommended levy of anti-dumping duty on the company, which is the sole agent of acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (NBR) of various grades, manufactured by Korea Kumho Petrochemicals Ltd.

This was done on a complaint by Apar Industries Ltd, which is a manufacturer of some grades of NBR, against exporters in Germany and Korea. After inquiry, the authority found that the domestic market was affected by the imports and therefore recommended the duty.

This has been upheld by the tribunal as well as by the Supreme Court. It also dismissed another appeal moved by Punit Resins Ltd against continuation of anti-dumping duty on it after the expiry of five years, for a further five-year period. The court accepted the assessment of the designated authority.

Court rules against refund

The Supreme Court last week set aside a judgment of the Bombay High Court asking the Maharashtra government to refund the earnest money it had forfeited along with interest, from a bidder, A P Paper Mills Ltd. The paper mill had bid for bamboo units in the state and paid earnest money.

However, the authorities concerned did not declare the tender sale result within the stipulated 30 days. Therefore, the company withdrew its offer and demanded the earnest money.

The authorities informed the company that its offer had been accepted and refused to refund the earnest deposit. This led to the writ petition in the high court.

The court directed the government to refund the amount. However, the Supreme Court quashed the high court order, stating that the accepted offer could not be withdrawn.

Too late to recover loan amount

The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation lost its case in the Supreme Court last week because it was too late in asserting its right to recover a loan amount from Crystal Marketing Pvt Ltd or its directors.

The company took a loan from the corporation but was unable to repay it. A district judge in Goa ordered the sale of the company's assets.

However, there was a shortfall in the amount realised after the sale. Since the directors had stood surety for the loan, the finance corporation proceeded against them.

They argued that the claim was made beyond the time prescribed in the Limitation Act. The contention was accepted by the Supreme Court while dismissing the corporation's appeal.

Hind Lever told not to repeat ad

The Supreme Court on Friday directed Hindustan Lever Ltd not to repeat a controversial advertisement for its toilet cleaner claiming that it was the only such product which can kill germs hundred per cent.

However, it can telecast or publish similar ads. Its rival, Reckitt Benckizer India Ltd, had moved the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission against the ad, on which the commission had passed an injunction against the Hindustan Lever. The latter appealed to the Supreme Court.

While modifying the commission's order, the court asked the commission to dispose of the case early, preferably within three months.