9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1132 - HC - CustomsLevy of ADD - petitioner has been categorized as non-cooperative - HELD THAT - The concern of the petitioner is that the DA, for the purposes for the investigation has, inter alia taken steps to gather information from SMTIL, which, according to Mr Jain, is a process that is not contemplated under the 1995 Rules - The petitioner is apprehensive, that if SMTIL were to not furnish the information, then the consequences of such an approach would have to be borne by the petitioner, who is the exporter of the final product. It cannot be accepted by learned counsel for the respondents that the categorization of the petitioner as non-cooperative , at this point in time, is only preliminary in nature - The DA will have to consider the information supplied by the petitioner and thereafter conclude one way or the other as to whether or not the petitioner ought to be categorized as non-cooperative . The official respondents i.e., respondent nos.1 and 2, are put to notice that they would bear in mind the assertion made by the petitioner, which is, that the transaction data was furnished only on 05.09.2022, and therefore, it would require, if not more, at least a couple of days for responding to the same - Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Challenge against disclosure statement categorizing petitioner as "non-cooperative." 2. Seeking direction to set aside petitioner's categorization. 3. Concerns regarding information sought from Indian company not involved in investigation. 4. Compliance with Customs Tariff Rules and Anti-Dumping Duty imposition. 5. Delay in receiving transaction data affecting response timeline. 6. Need for extension of time for responding to transaction data. 7. Jurisdiction of Designated Authority over Indian company. 8. Final finding considerations under Customs Tariff Rules. 9. Rights and contentions preservation for final notification. Issue 1: Challenge against Disclosure Statement: The petitioner sought a direction to set aside the categorization as "non-cooperative" in the disclosure statement dated 29.08.2022. The petitioner, formerly known as Sandvik Materials Technology (China) Co. Limited, argued that information sought from the Indian company, not involved in the investigation, was improper. The petitioner contended that being labeled as "non-cooperative" could lead to imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) under the Customs Tariff Rules. Issue 2: Compliance with Customs Tariff Rules: The petitioner's counsel highlighted Rule 17(3) of the 1995 Rules, emphasizing the need for ADD imposition to be specific to each known exporter or producer. Concerns were raised about the delayed receipt of transaction data, received after 5 P.M. on 05.09.2022, affecting the response timeline. The respondents argued against intervention, stating that the ongoing investigation by the Designated Authority (DA) was not final and did not warrant interference. Issue 3: Jurisdiction and Final Finding Considerations: The DA's authority to seek information from the Indian company, SMTIL, was debated. The respondents argued that the DA could request information from related parties, citing Rule 6(4) and Rule 2(c) of the 1995 Rules. The DA's final finding under Rule 17 was crucial, requiring considerations of the petitioner's cooperation and the Indian company's involvement in the process. Issue 4: Extension of Time for Response: The petitioner requested additional time to respond to the transaction data, citing the proviso under Rule 17(1) allowing for an extension in special circumstances. The court acknowledged the need for a reasonable response timeline and directed the official respondents to consider granting an extension if necessary. Issue 5: Rights Preservation for Final Notification: The judgment preserved the rights and contentions of the parties for future challenges upon the issuance of a final notification by the respondent. The writ petition was disposed of with the pending application closed, ensuring the parties could address any concerns regarding the final decision appropriately.
|
