2016 (10) TMI 155 - AT - Customs

Withdrawal of Anti Dumping Duty - retrospective effect or prospective effect - Sodium Tri Poly Phosphate - import from China PR - closure of STPP plant and no domestic industry for STPP in India - withdrawal of anti dumping duty vide notification no. 13/2012-Cus dated 22.02.2012 which rescinded the earlier notification no.58/201 1-Cus dated 8.7.2011. - Held that - submission sought from Id. Counsel for the appellants as to provision under which the relief is sought by them, with retrospective effect. No pointed submission on such legal provision could be made by the Id. Counsel for the appellants. The Designated Authority has followed the procedure as mandated by the Rules in respect of all the proceedings - absence of legal provisions for supporting the plea of the appellants - appeals dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition and withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on Sodium Tri Poly Phosphate (STPP) imported from China PR.
2. Request for revocation of anti-dumping duty due to closure of domestic industry.
3. Dispute regarding the retrospective effect of revocation of anti-dumping duty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals against the imposition and subsequent withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on STPP imported from China PR. The Designated Authority (DA) initiated investigations based on applications from domestic industries, leading to the imposition of provisional and definitive anti-dumping duties. Subsequently, upon receiving notifications of closure of production by domestic manufacturers, a mid-term review was initiated, resulting in the withdrawal of the anti-dumping duty through a final finding and a corresponding customs notification.

2. The appellants contended that anti-dumping duty should not have been levied from the date of closure of the domestic industry until the revocation date. They argued that since there was no domestic industry during that period, imposing anti-dumping duty would be unjust. The Designated Authority and the Revenue representatives maintained that the anti-dumping duty was withdrawn in accordance with Rule 23, without provision for retrospective revocation. The Designated Authority's actions were deemed to be in line with the established procedure, as all interested parties participated in the proceedings, and the Authority had no power to impose or terminate duty, only to investigate and recommend.

3. The Tribunal examined the legal and factual aspects of the case, emphasizing that the Designated Authority followed the prescribed procedure throughout the proceedings. The Designated Authority's decision to withdraw the anti-dumping duty from the date of the final finding, rather than retroactively from the closure of the domestic industry, was found to be in compliance with the rules. The appellants failed to cite a legal provision supporting their request for retrospective relief, leading to the dismissal of all appeals due to the absence of merit and legal grounds for retrospective revocation of the anti-dumping duty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's decision to withdraw the anti-dumping duty without retrospective effect, as the procedure followed was in accordance with the applicable rules, and there was no legal basis for granting the requested relief.