2016 (6) TMI 308 - HC - Customs

Anti Dumping Duty - Seeking change of name in the final findings of the Designated Authority (DA) - DA suggested to seek a Mid-Term Review instead of filing an application for change of name - Held that - it was incumbent on the DA to have first examined whether, on the basis of the documents submitted by the Petitioner, the change in its name has altered or impacted the basis for the imposition of the anti-dumping Duty in terms of the Final Findings. In order to come to such conclusion there has to be preliminary level examination, with the participation, if necessary, of the Petitioner. From the certificate issued by the Swedish Companies Registration Office it appears that the only change was in its name. This has happened subsequent to the Final Findings. This fact has to be taken note of by the DA and nothing more. The consequential change of the name of the Petitioner as recorded in the Final Findings should not ordinarily require an elaborate exercise of a mid-term Review. The failure to devise a procedure for dealing with the contingencies cannot constitute a valid reason to compel the initiation of a mid-term Review to effect changes that are of a routine nature and which do not affect the basis of the Findings. It is made clear, however, that if on examination of application made by such entity together with relevant documents the DA is of the view that such change in name affects the basis of the Findings, then it may, for reasons to be recorded, order a mid-term Review. In the present case the impugned communication issued to the Petitioner gives no reason whatsoever for requiring the Petitioner to go in for a midterm Review. It is also silent on whether the application made by the Petitioner with the enclosed documents was examined by the DA. Accordingly, the said decision as communicated by means of the impugned letter of the DA is hereby set aside. - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement for a Mid-Term Review for a change of name.
2. Examination of the impact of the name change on anti-dumping duty.
3. Validity of the Designated Authority's (DA) decision to mandate a Mid-Term Review.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement for a Mid-Term Review for a change of name:
The petitioner, INOVYN Sverige AB, formerly known as INEOS Sverige AB, challenged the DA's decision requiring them to file for a Mid-Term Review following a name change. The petitioner argued that the name change did not affect their legal status or other relevant factors such as cost of production, procurement sources, production facilities, sales channels, and cost of sales. The DA, however, insisted on a Mid-Term Review, citing the absence of an alternative procedure for addressing name changes in the Final Findings.

2. Examination of the impact of the name change on anti-dumping duty:
The court noted that the DA's primary role under Section 9-A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the corresponding rules is to assess the impact of imports on domestic industries and determine the necessity of anti-dumping duties. Rule 23 of the Rules provides for periodic reviews to assess the need for continued imposition of such duties. The Supreme Court in Rishiroop Polymers (P) Ltd. v. DA clarified that a Mid-Term Review is limited to assessing whether the conditions justifying the initial imposition of duties have changed significantly. The court found that a mere name change, as evidenced by the certificate from the Swedish Companies Registration Office, did not alter the petitioner's legal status or affect the basis for the imposition of anti-dumping duties.

3. Validity of the Designated Authority's (DA) decision to mandate a Mid-Term Review:
The court criticized the DA for not examining the petitioner's documents to determine if the name change warranted a Mid-Term Review. It emphasized that routine clerical corrections, such as name changes, should not necessitate a Mid-Term Review unless they impact the basis of the Final Findings. The DA's communication lacked reasoning and did not indicate whether the petitioner's application and documents were reviewed. Consequently, the court set aside the DA's decision and directed the DA to re-examine the petitioner's application and documents, make a reasoned decision, and communicate it to the petitioner within four weeks.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the DA's decision to mandate a Mid-Term Review for the petitioner's name change. It directed the DA to re-evaluate the application and documents submitted by the petitioner and make a decision within four weeks, emphasizing that routine name changes should not require a Mid-Term Review unless they impact the basis of the Final Findings.