2016 (10) TMI 900 - AT - Customs

Imposition of ADD - N/N. 7/2012 -Cus (ADD) dated 7.1.2012 - Sunset review - Saccharin - the period of investigation, for the purpose of sunset review was adopted as 15 months instead of 12 months normally adopted by the Designated authority - Held that - Sunset review, which is mandatory in nature is undertaken by the authorities to adjudge as to whether the Anti Dumping duties imposed, shall unless revoked earlier ceased to have effect on expiry of 5 years from the date of such imposition and whether expiry of duty is likely to lead to continuation or reoccurrence of the dumping and injury. In normal circumstances, in terms of provisions of section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the Anti Dumping duty imposed ceased to have effect on expiry of 5 years - It stand recorded in the impugned Final Findings of the Designated Authority that as per consistent practice, period of investigation ranging from 6 months to 18 months is usually fixed. In the absence of any period of investigation prescribed in the law, for the sunset review, we do not find any merits in the contention of the learned advocate that the period of 15 months for sunset review, adopted by the Designated Authority, was unjustified. In case of doubt of export price during POI, DA is free to look into the other corroborative evidence and to arrive at a finding. During the course of sunset review, the rate of duty cannot be enhanced - Held that - We have perused the provisions of Rule 23 of the Anti Dumping Rules, which relates to Midterm review and sunset review. It is the contention of the assessee that only rate of duty can be enhanced in Mid term review and not during sunset review. By drawing our attention to the said Rule 23 of the Rules, it stands contended that sub-rule 1A, which provides for variation in the Anti Dumping duty applies to only mid-term review and Rule sub section 1 (B) which relates to sunset review does not provides any variation in the rate of duty and only relates to the extension of period. Reliance placed on the decision of Indian Graphite Manufacturers Association vs. Designated Authority 2006 (4) TMI 274 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI where it was held that a cumulative reading of the section 9A(1), 9 A(5) and 9AA, read together, empowers the Designated Authority for recommending the amount of Anti Dumping Duty different from the amount of duty imposed at the time of initial imposition of definitive Anti Dumping duty. The purpose of review will be frustrated if the Designated Authority cannot recommend higher or lower Anti dumping duty than the original definitive Anti Dumping duty. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Final Finding of Designated Authority in Sunset review and Notification imposing Anti-Dumping duty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Final Finding of the Designated Authority in a Sunset review and the consequent Notification imposing Anti-Dumping duty on imports from China PR. The Designated Authority observed low exports at higher prices by the appellant during the period of investigation, leading to suspicions of stage-managed exports. The Designated Authority recommended the extension of Anti-Dumping duty for 5 years and an increase in the duty rate based on their findings.

2. The main contention of the appellant was the period of investigation adopted by the Designated Authority for the Sunset review, which was 15 months instead of the usual 12 months. The appellant argued that they could not have foreseen the extended period and thus could not have staged exports accordingly. However, the Tribunal found no legal provision restricting the period of investigation to 12 months for a Sunset review. The Tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's decision on the period of investigation.

3. The appellant also argued that the rate of duty could not be increased during a Sunset review. However, the Tribunal referred to Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules and a previous Tribunal decision, concluding that the Designated Authority has the power to recommend a different Anti-Dumping duty than the original one during a review. Therefore, the appellant's argument on this point was dismissed.

4. After analyzing all submissions and arguments, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Final Findings of the Designated Authority. The appeal was rejected based on the Tribunal's comprehensive analysis of the issues raised during the hearing.

This detailed analysis covers the key issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a thorough understanding of the case and the Tribunal's decision.