2020 (7) TMI 8 - HC - Customs

Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - Import of the Nylon Multi Filament Yarn originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP, Taiwan and Thailand on provisional assessment basis - It is the case of the writ applicants that the failure on the part of the respondent No.1 is causing injury to the domestic industry - Principles of Natural Justice - opportunity of hearing sought - HELD THAT - We may only say that the respondent No.1, Union of India, shall look into the recommendations made by the designated authority and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
- Application for writ under Article 226 seeking directions for anti-dumping duty on Nylon Multi Filament Yarn
- Failure of respondent No.1 to levy anti-dumping duty causing injury to domestic industry
- Final findings by Directorate General of Trade Remedies supporting writ applicants
- Recommendations and conclusion by designated authority for imposition of anti-dumping duty
- Bias allegations against Ministry of Textile by writ applicants
- Request for opportunity of hearing before final decision
- Opposition by applicants seeking impleadment as party respondents
- Union of India's obligation to independently examine issue before imposing duty

Analysis:
The writ application under Article 226 sought directions for the imposition of anti-dumping duty on Nylon Multi Filament Yarn exported from specific countries. The writ applicants claimed that the failure of respondent No.1 to impose such duty was causing harm to the domestic industry. The Directorate General of Trade Remedies had issued final findings supporting the writ applicants' stance, emphasizing the injury caused to the domestic industry due to dumped imports. The designated authority recommended the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty to offset the injury caused by dumping, following a thorough investigation and consideration of all relevant factors.

The writ applicants alleged bias on the part of the Ministry of Textile, claiming that their recommendations were based on incorrect and incomplete facts. They requested an opportunity for a hearing before any final decision was made. The Central Government assured that a decision would be taken promptly. However, applicants seeking impleadment as party respondents opposed the writ application, arguing that the recommendations by the designated authority were prejudicial to their interests.

The Court acknowledged the concerns raised and emphasized the need for the Union of India to independently examine the issue before imposing anti-dumping duty. It directed the Union of India to consider the recommendations made by the designated authority and make a decision within eight weeks in accordance with the law. The Court disposed of the writ application and the connected Civil Application, declining to implead the applicants at that stage and opting to conclude the matter with appropriate observations.