2021 (10) TMI 135 - HC - Customs

Levy of Anti-dumping duty - imports of melamine from the Peoples of Republic of China - sunset review investigation conducted by the Joint Secretary-cum-Designated Authority - N/N. ADSSR/16/2020 dated 23.08.2021 - grievance of the petitioner is that in course of the investigation by the Designated Authority, the petitioners had submitted certain representations/questionnaires, in course of their entitlement for a hearing before the Designated Authority where sunset review investigation was being conducted - HELD THAT - As the final determination has not yet been made by the Central Government, we request the Central Government to take note of that the import questionnaire response submitted by the petitioner at the stage of sunset review investigation was not taken into consideration by the Designated Authority by stating the reason that they were required to file user questionnaire response and not the import questionnaire response in the background of the aspect that it is an admitted position of the Designated Authority that the petitioner Century Ply is both an importer and a consumer and by taking note, give a due consideration as required under the law. If any other representation was also submitted by the petitioners before the Designated Authority at the stage of the investigation, the Central Government may also look into it, if otherwise acceptable in law. It is also stated that the petitioners had also submitted the representation before the Designated Authority at the stage when the sunset review investigation was carried out. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to consider petitioner's representations/questionnaires during sunset review investigation.
2. Discrepancy in the consideration of user questionnaire response vs. import questionnaire response.
3. Role of Designated Authority and Central Government in making final determinations.
4. Request for Central Government to consider petitioner's submissions before final determination.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner raised a grievance regarding the Designated Authority's failure to consider their representations/questionnaires during the sunset review investigation. The petitioner contended that their submissions were not given due consideration in the final recommendation made by the Designated Authority, as per the notification dated 23.08.2021.

2. A key point of contention was the discrepancy in the treatment of the petitioner as an importer and a consumer by the Designated Authority. The Designated Authority concluded that the petitioner was required to fill the user questionnaire response instead of the import questionnaire response. This discrepancy raised concerns as the petitioner was acknowledged as both an importer and a consumer by the Designated Authority.

3. The judgment highlighted the role of the Designated Authority and the Central Government in making final determinations in such matters. Referring to a previous Supreme Court ruling, it was emphasized that the findings/orders of the Designated Authority are recommendatory, and the final decision rests with the Central Government. It was noted that the Central Government was yet to make the final determination in this case.

4. The Court, in its decision, requested the Central Government to consider the import questionnaire response submitted by the petitioner during the sunset review investigation. The Court urged the Central Government to take note of the petitioner's submissions and give them due consideration as required by law before making the final determination. Additionally, the Central Government was advised to review any other representations submitted by the petitioner during the investigation, if permissible under the law, to ensure a fair assessment of the matter.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the issues raised in the legal judgment and provides a comprehensive overview of the court's decision and directives concerning the petitioner's grievances and the actions to be taken by the Central Government in the case.