2016 (10) TMI 20 - HC - Customs

Imposition of Anti Dumping duty - PVC Suspension Resin - import from EU and Mexico - mid-term review - acquisition of joint control of a newly established joint venture by way of transfer of assets - change of name - Held that - the decision in the case of Inovyn Sverige AB Versus The Designated Authority & Anr 2016 (6) TMI 308 - DELHI HIGH COURT relied upon. The impugned communication dated 7th March 2016 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 on 18th December 2015 with the enclosed documents was examined by the DA - A direction issued to DA to examine the Petitioner s application dated 18th December 2015 and the enclosed documents and take a decision, in writing, after hearing the Petitioner, if considered necessary, within a period of four weeks from today - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to a letter requiring a mid-term review of anti-dumping duty on PVC Suspension Resin import from EU and Mexico due to a change in company name.

Analysis:
The petition challenges a letter by the Designated Authority (DA) requiring a mid-term review of anti-dumping duty on PVC Suspension Resin import from the European Union (EU) and Mexico due to a change in the petitioner's name. The petitioner, a UK-based company previously known as Ineos Chlor Vinyls Ltd., now Inovyn Chlor Vinyls Ltd., participated in the investigation leading to a duty recommendation by the DA. The change in name occurred post the Final Findings dated 4th April 2014, following a joint venture creation involving INEOS AG and SOLVAY SA. The European Commission approved the joint venture, resulting in the name change to Inovyn Chlor Vinyls Ltd. The petitioner's operations, production facilities, and sales channels remained consistent despite the name change.

The petitioner, along with another entity, applied for a name change in the Final Findings, but the DA issued a letter for a mid-term review without considering the application. The court referred to a similar case where the DA was required to assess if the name change impacted the basis for anti-dumping duty imposition. The court emphasized that a mere change in name should not necessitate a mid-term review unless it alters the basis of the findings significantly. The court highlighted the need for the DA to have a procedure for routine clerical corrections post-findings issuance.

The court set aside the DA's decision, directing the DA to examine the petitioner's application and documents, make a decision after hearing the petitioner, and communicate it within four weeks. The petitioner was granted the right to seek further legal remedies if aggrieved by the decision. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs, concluding the judgment.