2018 (11) TMI 689 - HC - Customs

Continuation of ADD imposed on the imports of Ductile Iron Pipes (DI Pipes) originating in or exported from China - sunset review investigation under Rule 23(1B) of the Custom Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - Held that - It is expected of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India to take follow-up action immediately as directed and if the order dated 26.09.2018 passed by Special Civil Application No. 12368 of 2018 is not complied with and notification in this regard is not issued from concerned officer in-charge will be held responsible for non-compliance of the order issued by this Court which may include proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act also. Respondent or concerned Ministry is directed in his absence to comply with Order dated 26.09.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12368 of 2018 by initiating sunset review well before 09.10.2018 - Respondent or the concerned Ministry is directed to comply with Order dated 26.09.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12368 of 2018 by requesting Ministry of Finance for extending duties under Notification No. 23/2013-Customs (ADD) dated 10.10.2013 well before 09.10.2018 - application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order initiating sunset review investigation under Rule 23(1B) of Custom Tariff Rules, 1995.
2. Compliance with legal requirements for anti-dumping duty continuation.
3. Quashing of the impugned order due to lack of reasons.
4. Directions for the respondent authority to decide the application afresh.
5. Potential non-compliance consequences for the Ministry of Finance.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The petitioner challenged the order initiating a sunset review investigation under Rule 23(1B) of the Custom Tariff Rules, 1995. The High Court noted that the order was challenged as it failed to consider various factors required by the Rules, such as calling for information from exporters, determination of normal value, export price, margin of dumping, and injury assessment as per the prescribed principles.

Issue 2: The Court found that the impugned order lacked clarity and failed to meet the legal requirements for the continuation of anti-dumping duty. It highlighted deficiencies in the order, including the absence of necessary determinations and assessments as mandated by the Rules, leading to the quashing of the order.

Issue 3: Due to the lack of reasons and clarity in the impugned order, the High Court set it aside. The Court emphasized the importance of proper consideration of applications and compliance with legal provisions, directing the respondent authority to decide the application for a sunset review afresh within a specified timeline.

Issue 4: The Court issued specific directions to the respondent authority to comply with the order by deciding the application for a sunset review in accordance with the law within six months from the date of receipt of the order. It further extended the period of anti-dumping duty until a new decision was made, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with the legal requirements.

Issue 5: The Court warned of potential consequences for non-compliance with the order, indicating that the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, must take immediate follow-up action. It highlighted that failure to comply could result in holding the officer in charge responsible for non-compliance, potentially leading to contempt of court proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on ensuring compliance with legal provisions, setting aside the impugned order, and issuing specific directions for a fresh decision on the application for a sunset review of anti-dumping duty, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal requirements and timelines to avoid potential consequences for non-compliance.