9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 729 - HC - CustomsLevy of anti dumping duty - dumping of Pentaerythritol - only point urged on the part of the petitioner was that the petitioner, being an interested party, was not given an opportunity of oral hearing prior to the issuance of the final findings by the designated authority - Held that - it is clear that the definition of interested party , being an inclusive one, cannot be regarded as an exhaustive or as a hard and fast definition. The expression interested party as defined would therefore refer to its natural, ordinary and popular meaning as also to the particular entities which are stated to be included, namely, an exporter or a foreign producer or the importer of an article subject to investigation for being dumped in India, or a trader or business association a majority of the members of which are producers, exporters or importers of such an article; the government of the exporting country; and a producer of the like article in India or a trade and business association a majority of the members of which produce the like article in India. In its natural and ordinary sense interested party would have reference to a party who is interested in the investigation and the ultimate outcome of it. The petitioner was an importer of Penta from other countries such as Sweden and Germany during the period of investigation. But, in the post POI period, the petitioner had imports of Penta from Russia. In any event, the petitioner was a prospective importer of Penta from Russia. It was therefore vitally interested in the outcome of the investigation into the complaint regarding dumping of Penta from Russia. The result of the investigation would affect the petitioner, one way or the other. - it is evident that the petitioner would be an interested party . In fact, as pointed out by Mr Balbir Singh, even the DA considered the petitioner to be an interested party and treated it as such in the impugned Final Findings. We are also in agreement with the views of CESTAT in the Lubrizol case with regard to the meaning to be ascribed to the expression interested party . The CESTAT decisions cited by Mr Sethi are clearly distinguishable as in those cases the concerned party had not participated in the investigation conducted by the DA. - petitioner falls within the expression interested party as defined in Rule 2(c) of the said Rules. DA functions as a quasijudicial authority and decides a lis between persons supporting the levy of duty and those opposing the levy. Furthermore, the DA is bound to follow the principles of natural justice and to give an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, in fact, to all the parties, who have filed objections and adduced evidence . The petitioner, being an interested party and at least a party who had filed objections and adduced evidence was required to be heard, particularly, when it repeatedly asked for a hearing. It is also clear from the Supreme Court decision that written arguments / submissions / comments are no substitute for an oral hearing. In the backdrop of the clear enunciation of law by the Supreme Court 2011 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , it has to be held that it is mandatory for the DA to give an opportunity of oral hearing to an interested party. DA has violated the principles of natural justice in not giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. And, that is fatal. Consequently, the Final Findings, having been rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice, stand vitiated and cannot be sustained. As a result, the impugned Final Findings are quashed - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Definition of "interested party" under Rule 2(c) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. 2. Mandatory requirement for the Designated Authority (DA) to provide an opportunity for oral hearing to an interested party. 3. Consequences of not granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Definition of "interested party" under Rule 2(c): The petitioner argued that it should be considered an "interested party" under Rule 2(c) of the said Rules, which includes "an exporter or a foreign producer or the importer of an article subject to investigation for being dumped in India." The petitioner, being an importer of Pentaerythritol (Penta), claimed this status. The respondents countered that the petitioner did not import Penta from Russia during the investigation period (01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012) and thus could not be considered an "interested party." The court noted that the definition of "interested party" is inclusive and not exhaustive, meaning it cannot be restricted to the entities explicitly mentioned. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of inclusive definitions, which extend the ordinary meaning to include additional entities. The court concluded that the petitioner's interest in the investigation and its potential impact on future imports from Russia made it an "interested party." The DA's own treatment of the petitioner as an "interested party" in the Final Findings further supported this conclusion. 2. Mandatory requirement for the DA to provide an opportunity for oral hearing: The petitioner contended that it was not given an opportunity for oral hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The respondents acknowledged that Rule 6(6) of the Rules provides for an opportunity to present information orally but argued that the petitioner was not an "interested party." The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority & Ors* (2011), which held that the DA exercises quasi-judicial functions and is bound to act judicially. The Supreme Court emphasized that the DA must provide a personal hearing to all parties who filed objections and adduced evidence. Written submissions are no substitute for an oral hearing. The court concluded that the DA's failure to grant an oral hearing to the petitioner, who was an interested party and had requested a hearing, violated principles of natural justice. 3. Consequences of not granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner: Given the affirmative answers to the first two questions, the court found that the DA's actions violated principles of natural justice, rendering the Final Findings invalid. Consequently, the court quashed the Final Findings and allowed the writ petition to this extent. Conclusion: The court held that the petitioner was an "interested party" under Rule 2(c) and that the DA was required to provide an opportunity for oral hearing. The failure to do so violated principles of natural justice, leading to the quashing of the Final Findings. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.
|
