2011 (1) TMI 1505 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Quashing of preliminary findings recommending provisional anti-dumping duty on PVC Flex Films imports into India and seeking direction for fixing anti-dumping duty based on reference price.

Analysis:
The petition sought to quash the preliminary findings recommending provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of PVC Flex Films into India and to fix the duty based on reference price. The petitioner, an Indian company importing PVC Flex Films, argued that the investigation could not be initiated based on the application of Respondent No. 4, as it did not fall under the definition of the domestic industry. The petitioner also contended that the basis of anti-dumping duty should be the margin of dumping, which was not properly determined in this case. The High Court noted that the petitioner had the remedy of appeal available under Section 96 of the Act before the Tribunal against the levy of provisional duty. The provisional duty was effective until the normal value and margin of dumping were determined. The impugned notification was based on preliminary findings that goods were exported below the normal value, causing injury to the domestic industry. Despite the availability of alternative remedies, the Court held that the findings were based on evidence collected following due procedure. The Court observed that the impugned notification could not be considered perverse or arbitrary at that stage, and thus dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the observations made were not a final opinion on the merits and did not affect the statutory remedy of appeal.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the preliminary findings recommending provisional anti-dumping duty on PVC Flex Films imports into India. The Court emphasized the availability of alternative statutory remedies, including the right to appeal, and held that the findings were based on evidence collected following due procedure. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned notification at that stage, stating that it was not perverse or arbitrary. The Court clarified that its observations did not represent a final opinion on the merits and did not impact the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner.