9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (8) TMI 925 - AT - CustomsAnti dumping duty 6(6) - hearing by one Designated authority and decision decision by another - In view of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association (2011 -TMI - 201474 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA),new authority should have reheard the proceedings before giving its decision. Power of Tribunal to remand back - time period to decide case - In view of BASF South East Asia Pte. Ltd. v. Designated Authority (2010 - TMI - 77631 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochem v. Designated Authority (2006 - TMI - 47777 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI) no time-limit prescribed under the Act for the Tribunal to decide an appeal or to remand an appeal within the 18 months period, which is prescribed for completion of investigation by the DA under the Rules only.
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice. 2. Validity of anti-dumping duties imposed without fresh public hearings by successor Designated Authority (DA). 3. Tribunal's power to remand cases for further investigation. 4. Economic impact on domestic industry due to anti-dumping duties. Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The appellants contended that the principles of natural justice were violated because the public hearings were conducted by one DA, but the Final Findings were issued by a successor DA without granting a fresh hearing. This contention was based on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association (ATMA) v. Designated Authority and Others, which mandated that a successor DA must provide a fresh hearing to comply with natural justice principles. 2. Validity of Anti-Dumping Duties: The appeals challenged the Final Findings and the consequent anti-dumping duties imposed by the Finance Ministry. The appellants argued that since the successor DA did not hold fresh hearings, the duties should be quashed. The domestic industry, however, argued that setting aside the duties would cause continuous injury due to dumping, and that the written submissions were considered by the DA, thus no prejudice was caused. 3. Tribunal's Power to Remand Cases: The Tribunal examined whether it had the power to remand cases back to the DA for further investigation and compliance with the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referenced several precedents and legal provisions, including Section 9C(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982, which empower it to pass orders necessary to secure the ends of justice, including remand. 4. Economic Impact on Domestic Industry: The Tribunal considered the serious economic consequences of setting aside the anti-dumping duties. It noted that such an outcome would not be just for the domestic industry, which would suffer irreparable injury due to dumping. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of balancing the need for compliance with natural justice and the economic interests of the domestic industry. Conclusion: The Tribunal decided to allow the appeals by remanding the cases to the DA for post-decisional hearings. This would involve the DA considering any modifications to the Final Findings based on these hearings, with participation from the domestic industry and other interested parties. The Tribunal set a six-month timeframe for this process, maintaining the status quo in the meantime. The decision was guided by various legal precedents and the need to ensure fairness and justice while protecting the domestic industry's interests. Relevant Legal Precedents and Provisions Cited: - United Planters Association of Southern India v. K.G. Sangameswaran - AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1300 - State Bank of Patiala and Ors. v. S.K. Sharma - AIR 1996 (S.C.) 1669 - Rule 6(6), 6(7), 6(8) of the Anti-dumping Rules - M/s. Kranti Associates v. Sh. Masood Khan - SLP (C) No. 12766 of 2008 - Haridas Exports v. All India Float Glass Mfrs. Association - 2002 (145) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) - Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Designated Authority - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 673 (S.C.) - Various Tribunal cases involving remand in anti-dumping cases - Section 9C(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Calcutta v. National Taj Traders - (1980) 1 Supreme Court Cases 370 - Deepak Fertilizers & Petrochem v. Designated Authority - 2006 (203) E.L.T. 370 (Del.) Order: The appeals were allowed by remand to the DA for post-decisional hearings, with instructions for the process to be completed within six months and maintaining the status quo in the meantime. Related stay petitions, MAs, and COs were disposed of accordingly.
|
