2019 (4) TMI 739 - HC - Customs

ADD - extension of anti dumping duty - Sunset Review on anti dumping investigation - imports of Ductile Iron Pipes - import from China PR - Held that - What has been submitted for assailing the order appears to be of substance for holding that there is a prima facie case and so far as balance of convenience is concerned for issuing any interim order, we must record here that the entire investigation period and even prior thereto there was no import these commodities in question as recorded. Meaning thereby, one can safely conclude that there is no one interested at present in importing the commodity in question, else there would have been at least some resistance or submission on their behalf to the designated authority. The anti dumping duty in case if not extended for the suitable period, then the same would render the petition infructuous and the entire challenge to the final finding which is, prima facie, appears to be substantive in nature would be rendered without any avail to the petitioner. The extension of anti dumping duty ordered under the notification dated 09/10/2018 be further extended by respondent-Union of India for appropriate period, not less then one month from 09/04/2019 - Notice returnable on 08/04/2019.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging final finding in Sunset Review on anti-dumping investigation concerning Ductile Iron Pipes from China PR.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the final finding in the Sunset Review on anti-dumping investigation regarding imports of Ductile Iron Pipes from China PR. The Court noted that the authorities had initially declined to initiate the Sunset Review, prompting the domestic industry to seek relief from the Court. The Court observed various deficiencies in the impugned order, such as the absence of factors like calling for information from exporters, determination of normal value, export price, margin of dumping, and injury assessment according to the prescribed rules. As a result, the Court set aside the order and directed the authorities to decide the Sunset Review application afresh within six months, extending the anti-dumping duty until a decision is made. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with the legal provisions governing anti-dumping investigations.

The Court further highlighted the need for follow-up action by the Ministry of Finance to ensure compliance with its directions. It issued specific directions for the concerned ministry to initiate the Sunset Review and extend the duties as per the Court's order. The authorities subsequently extended the anti-dumping duty for six months, and comments were invited on the matter. The petitioner's counsel pointed out discrepancies between the earlier and current final findings, emphasizing the lack of proper assessment and application of relevant provisions. Reference was made to a Delhi High Court judgment underscoring the importance of not interrupting the levying of anti-dumping duty within the permissible period.

The Court considered the lack of imports of the relevant commodities during the investigation period and concluded that there was no current interest in importing the commodity in question. It expressed concern that failure to extend the anti-dumping duty could render the petition ineffective. Consequently, the Court issued interim directions to suspend the final finding and extend the anti-dumping duty until a specified date to prevent the petition from becoming futile. The order was passed ex parte, allowing the other party to seek modification or vacation of the order if necessary.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the deficiencies in the Sunset Review process, emphasized the importance of complying with legal requirements, and issued specific directions to ensure the continuation of the anti-dumping duty pending a fresh decision. The Court's interim directions aimed to maintain the status quo and prevent the petition from losing its relevance due to the potential expiration of the duty.