2007 (10) TMI 62 - HC - Customs

Anti-dumping duty terminated by designated authority deciding no injury is being caused to domestic producers by import of HR Coils Decision is based on material placed by petitioner and exporter - No violation of natural justice - Hence petition for request to impose anti-dumping duty is malafide

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the termination of anti-dumping investigation.
2. Compliance with statutory provisions and rules.
3. Examination of injury and dumping.
4. Confidentiality and availability of information.
5. Volume and price effect of imports.
6. Procedural fairness and natural justice.
7. Impact of advance license scheme and floor price.
8. Adequacy of reasons provided by the Designated Authority.
9. Validity of the Designated Authority's findings.
10. Judicial review and scope of interference.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the termination of anti-dumping investigation:
The petitioners contested the Designated Authority's order dated 27th August 2003, which terminated the anti-dumping investigation into imports of Hot rolled coils, Sheets, Plates, and Strips from multiple countries. The petitioners argued that the termination was unjustified and lacked sufficient evidence of injury.

2. Compliance with statutory provisions and rules:
The court examined the statutory provisions under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the Customs Tariff (Anti Dumping Rules) 1995. It was noted that the Designated Authority followed the prescribed procedures, including issuing public notices, notifying embassies, and providing opportunities for interested parties to present their views.

3. Examination of injury and dumping:
The Designated Authority conducted a detailed investigation, including oral hearings and analysis of evidence. It was found that the imports from the subject countries did not meet the prescribed volume threshold for cumulative assessment. The imports from several countries were below 3% of the total imports and collectively accounted for only 4.88%, thus being de minimis and not justifying continuation of the investigation.

4. Confidentiality and availability of information:
The petitioners argued that they were not provided with all the information submitted to the Designated Authority. The court noted that the Designated Authority is empowered to maintain confidentiality under Rule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Anti Dumping Duty) Rules 1995. It was found that the Designated Authority made available all non-confidential information as required by law.

5. Volume and price effect of imports:
The Designated Authority's assessment showed that the landed value of imports from the subject countries was higher than the non-injurious price of the domestic industry. There was no significant price undercutting or material injury to the domestic industry. The court upheld these findings, noting that the Designated Authority's conclusions were based on relevant data and evidence.

6. Procedural fairness and natural justice:
The petitioners claimed that the Designated Authority violated principles of natural justice by not disclosing certain information and not providing an adequate hearing. The court found that the petitioners were given multiple opportunities to present their case, including oral hearings and submission of data. The Designated Authority's actions were in compliance with the statutory requirements, and no procedural unfairness was established.

7. Impact of advance license scheme and floor price:
The court noted that imports under the advance license scheme were for export production and did not compete in the domestic market. The Designated Authority included these imports in its assessment, as excluding them would have shown an even higher average export price. The floor price set by the government provided protection to the domestic industry during the investigation period.

8. Adequacy of reasons provided by the Designated Authority:
The court examined whether the Designated Authority provided sufficient reasons for its findings. It was found that the order dated 27th August 2003 contained a detailed analysis and reasons for each conclusion. The court held that the Designated Authority's decision met the legal requirements for giving reasons.

9. Validity of the Designated Authority's findings:
The court upheld the Designated Authority's findings, noting that the investigation was conducted in accordance with the rules, and the conclusions were based on relevant material. The petitioners' objections to the inclusion of certain countries and the assessment of volume and price effects were found to be without merit.

10. Judicial review and scope of interference:
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, focusing on whether the decision was reasonable and based on relevant material. The Designated Authority's order was found to be reasonable and not arbitrary. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds for interference with the Designated Authority's decision.

Conclusion:
The writ petition challenging the termination of the anti-dumping investigation was dismissed. The court upheld the Designated Authority's findings, procedures, and the adequacy of reasons provided. The investigation was conducted in compliance with statutory provisions, and no procedural unfairness was established. The petitioners' objections were found to be without merit, and the Designated Authority's decision was deemed reasonable and justified.