2011 (6) TMI 544 - AT - Customs

Anti-dumping duty - Advocate appearing for the domestic industry states that the appellant-Association has not demonstrated before the Designated Authority that it is an Interested party under the Rules. She also states that the Designated Authority had taken into account the Association s representation while giving his Final Findings and that the details furnished for the post investigation period could not have been taken into account by the Designated Authority Held that - Designated Authority before recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty was required to provide personal hearing to parties who have filed objections and adduced evidence before him. - matter remanded back to the Designated Authority. Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to imposition of anti-dumping duty on coumarin; Violation of principles of natural justice; Concerns of user Association not considered; Designated Authority's Final Findings without a hearing; Appellant-Association's representation disregarded; Credentials as an Interested party questioned; Designated Authority's decision to levy anti-dumping duty; Compliance with statutory time-limit; Granting a personal hearing before recommending duty.

Analysis:

The appeal challenges the imposition of anti-dumping duty on coumarin, representing tiny, small, and medium-sized manufacturers and exporters. The appellant argues that the duty adversely affects numerous consumers and benefits a monopolistic domestic producer. They claim lack of notice during the investigation and challenge the Final Findings without a personal hearing, alleging a violation of natural justice.

The domestic industry defends the duty, stating closure of two producers due to dumping and potential closure of the sole remaining manufacturer. Citing a Supreme Court decision, they argue against addressing monopolistic practices under anti-dumping laws.

The Designated Authority supports the duty, citing proper notice issuance and the need to meet statutory time limits. However, the Tribunal finds fault in the Authority's actions, noting the lack of a hearing for the appellant-Association before recommending the duty, thus protecting the sole producer's interest.

The Tribunal criticizes the Authority for not granting a personal hearing to objecting parties, deeming the Final Findings and duty notification legally unsustainable. The Authority's failure to address the appellant-Association's objections and evidence adequately is highlighted, leading to the duty's annulment and remand for a fresh decision with a fair hearing within six months.

Regarding the Interested party status, the Tribunal finds the appellant-Association's objections valid, supported by their registration certificate and substantial representation. The Supreme Court's decision cited by the domestic industry is deemed irrelevant to the case, with a passing reference supporting the appellants' position.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allows the appeal, setting aside the impugned notifications and directing provisional assessment of future imports pending the remand proceedings. The decision emphasizes the importance of granting a fair hearing to all concerned parties in anti-dumping investigations to ensure legal compliance and protect the interests of all stakeholders.