2018 (8) TMI 1973 - HC - Customs

Anti-Dumping Duty - initiation of investigation for imposition of anti-dumping duty on dumped imports - petitioner would contend that the petitioner is a producer of 2-EH which is a like article, as defined under Rule 2(d) of the Rules of 1995, to 2-PH and INA - HELD THAT - The second respondent has not considered the issue whether the imported products and the domestic products are technically and commercially substitutable and has not come to a conclusion on like article . This action of the second respondent becomes absolutely ignoring the order of this Court dated 09.02.2018 in W.P.No.25988 of 2017 and the impugned order is one without application of mind. There is no cogent reason pushing the petitioner to file repeated applications and the second respondent cannot pass orders in a routine and casual manner, in spite of sufficient material available with him. This writ petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the second respondent. The second respondent is directed to take steps for initiating investigation to determine the anti-dumping in respect of import of INA having carbon No.9 from European Union and Singapore and 2-PH having carbon No.10 from European Union, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petitioner's prayer for a writ of mandamus to declare the impugned order illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Rules of 1995.
2. Petitioner's status as a domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the Rules of 1995.
3. Rejection of petitioner's application for anti-dumping investigation by the second respondent.
4. Compliance with court directions and consideration of dumped products causing injury to domestic industry.
5. Determination of 'like article' under Rule 2(d) of the Rules of 1995.
6. Allegation of second respondent ignoring court orders and not applying mind in passing the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to challenge the impugned order rejecting the application for an anti-dumping investigation. The court noted the petitioner's status as a limited company and sole producer of certain acyclic alcohols in India, constituting a domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of the Rules of 1995.

2. The petitioner filed applications for anti-dumping duty on dumped imports, which were initially rejected by the second respondent. Following a court order directing reconsideration, the second respondent again declined to initiate the investigation. The court emphasized the need for the second respondent to evaluate the information in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Rules of 1995.

3. The court considered the concept of 'like article' under Rule 2(d) of the Rules of 1995, emphasizing the need for technical and commercial substitutability between imported and domestic products. It highlighted the petitioner's argument that the second respondent failed to determine whether the dumped products caused injury to the domestic industry, as required by law.

4. The court found that the second respondent did not comply with the court's previous order and failed to apply due diligence in passing the impugned order. It criticized the casual approach of the second respondent and directed a fresh investigation to determine anti-dumping concerning specific imports from the European Union and Singapore.

5. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and instructing the second respondent to initiate the anti-dumping investigation promptly. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to legal provisions and court directives in matters concerning trade regulations and domestic industries.