2017 (4) TMI 783 - HC - Customs

Imposition of ADD - Vitrified/Porcelain Tiles - import from People s Republic of China (PRC) - The petitioner nos. 1 to 4 contend that they made no exports during the earlier period, hence the observations of the DA with respect to either the exports to India or to the related companies were unfounded and irrelevant to the aspect of dumping and injury - Held that - the Court being mindful of the fact that the CESTAT was set up as a judicial body for hearing the appeals i.e. to deal with an order impugned before it on merits after discussing the details of the case. It is supposed to return a finding on the issues framed or raised before it. The impugned order evidently is shorn of such details or the rationale for arriving at the conclusion it has. Mere reference to paragraphs numbers of the Final Findings ex facie does not satisfy the requirements of passing a reasoned order. The petitioners case warrant a deep analysis and thorough adjudication. However, considering that the order on merits by this Court could well affect the pending appeals of the Domestic Industry, the Court is of the view that the case be remanded back to be heard and disposed off on its merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Quashing of the final order dated 25.01.2017 by CESTAT.
2. Quashing of the Custom Notification dated 07.06.2016.
3. Validity of the anti-dumping duties imposed on Vitrified/Porcelain Tiles from China.
4. Procedural and substantive errors in the New Shipper Review (NSR).
5. Alleged breach of natural justice.
6. Compliance with statutory timelines for issuing Final Findings.
7. Examination of the de minimis anti-dumping margin.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of the final order dated 25.01.2017 by CESTAT:
The petitioners sought the quashing of the final order dated 25.01.2017 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). They argued that the CESTAT's order lacked detailed reasoning and did not address their contentions adequately. The Court noted that the impugned order was shorn of details and rationale, merely referencing paragraphs from the Final Findings without substantive reasoning. The Court emphasized that judicial orders must indicate reasons to ensure transparency and fairness, referencing the Supreme Court's observation in M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors, which mandates recording reasons in support of conclusions.

2. Quashing of the Custom Notification dated 07.06.2016:
The petitioners also sought to quash the Custom Notification dated 07.06.2016, which imposed anti-dumping duties based on the Final Findings of the Designated Authority (DA). The Court observed that the Final Findings and the subsequent notification were issued well beyond the statutory period, raising questions about their validity. The Court highlighted that the DA must issue Final Findings within one year from the initiation of the investigation, extendable by six months only in special circumstances, which was not adhered to in this case.

3. Validity of the anti-dumping duties imposed on Vitrified/Porcelain Tiles from China:
The anti-dumping duties were imposed on imports of Vitrified/Porcelain Tiles originating from China. The petitioners contended that they were eligible for an individual dumping margin as they had not exported the goods during the initial investigation period. The Court noted that the DA's verification revealed discrepancies in the petitioners' declarations, undermining their claim for a New Shipper Review. However, the Court found that the CESTAT's order lacked detailed reasoning to support the DA's conclusions.

4. Procedural and substantive errors in the New Shipper Review (NSR):
The petitioners argued that the NSR process was flawed, citing procedural errors and substantive law violations. They contended that the DA's findings were based on incorrect assumptions about their export activities and relationships with related companies. The Court acknowledged these concerns, noting that the DA's verification process and the CESTAT's order did not adequately address the petitioners' contentions, warranting a remand for thorough adjudication.

5. Alleged breach of natural justice:
The petitioners claimed a breach of natural justice, arguing that they were not provided with a copy of the respondents' written submissions, depriving them of an opportunity for effective representation. The Court agreed, emphasizing that the Tribunal should not have considered the written submissions without furnishing a copy to the petitioners, thereby denying them natural justice.

6. Compliance with statutory timelines for issuing Final Findings:
The petitioners contended that the Final Findings were issued beyond the statutory period, rendering them unsustainable. The Court highlighted that Rule 17(1) of the Rules mandates the DA to issue Final Findings within one year from the initiation of the investigation, extendable by six months only in special circumstances. The NSR was initiated on 18.05.2012, but the Final Findings were notified on 09.09.2016, well beyond the permissible period, raising questions about their validity.

7. Examination of the de minimis anti-dumping margin:
The petitioners argued that their dumping margin was de minimis (less than 2%), as demonstrated in the Disclosure Statement, and thus, the anti-dumping duty should not have been imposed. The Court noted that the CESTAT's order did not address this contention adequately, necessitating a remand for detailed examination of the de minimis claim.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the CESTAT's order and remanded the case back to the CESTAT for a thorough adjudication on merits, including the period of limitation and the de minimis claim. The CESTAT was directed to hear the parties and dispose of the appeals by 30.06.2017, ensuring that all submissions of the parties are dealt with comprehensively. The Court emphasized that nothing in its order should be construed as an expression on the merits, preserving the parties' liberty to canvass all contentions.