2002 (5) TMI 68 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition.
2. Jurisdictional error in the initiation of anti-dumping investigation.
3. Adequacy and accuracy of evidence for initiation of investigation.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
5. Validity of Rule 6(7) regarding confidentiality of information.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The petitioners challenged the initiation notification dated 25th June 2001 and the preliminary findings dated 16th January 2002 recommending the levy of provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of Polyester Staple Fibre (PSF) from Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Thailand. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing non-compliance with Rule 375(4) of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, delay in filing, and the existence of an alternative remedy u/s 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The court held that the writ petition is maintainable, especially in cases where there is a jurisdictional error or violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Jurisdictional Error in the Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigation:
The petitioners argued that the initiation notification was issued without satisfying the conditions precedent u/s 5(2) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (Rules of 1995). The court found that the Designated Authority had prima facie evidence of dumping, injury, and causal link, justifying the initiation of the investigation. The Designated Authority's decision to initiate the investigation was based on substantial evidence, including the significant increase in imports from the subject countries and the adverse impact on the domestic industry.

3. Adequacy and Accuracy of Evidence for Initiation of Investigation:
The petitioners contended that the evidence provided in the application was inadequate and inaccurate. The court observed that the Designated Authority had examined the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application and found it sufficient to initiate the investigation. The Designated Authority had considered the data on surplus capacity, market share, and price depression, which indicated material injury to the domestic industry.

4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that they were not given an opportunity to present relevant information or a hearing as required by Rule 6(5) and (6) of the Rules of 1995. The court held that the Designated Authority had complied with the procedural requirements, providing adequate opportunity to all interested parties to present their case. The court noted that the Designated Authority had considered all representations and evidence submitted by the interested parties.

5. Validity of Rule 6(7) Regarding Confidentiality of Information:
The petitioners challenged the validity of Rule 6(7) concerning the confidentiality of information. The court upheld the validity of the rule, stating that the confidentiality of sensitive information is in the larger public interest. The rule ensures that confidential information, such as normal value, export price, and costing, is protected from disclosure without authorization.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both writ petitions, finding no merit in the challenges to the initiation notification and the preliminary findings. The Designated Authority had acted within its jurisdiction and complied with the procedural requirements, and the confidentiality provisions were valid.