2021 (11) TMI 488 - AT - Customs

Non-Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - imports of Nonyl Phenol from Chinese Taipei - seeking for issuance of a direction to the Central Government to issue a notification for imposition of anti-dumping duty, based on the recommendation made by the designated authority - HELD THAT - In JUBILANT INGREVIA LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, DESIGNATED AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES, GHW (VIETNAM) CO. LTD., M/S. GHW HOLDING COMPANY HONG KONG, SHENG LONG BIO-TEC INDIA PVT. LTD. AND UTTARA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED PUNE 2021 (11) TMI 200 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , the same issues as have been raised in this appeal were raised. The decision taken by the Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty, despite a recommendations having been made by the designated authority for an imposition of anti-dumping duty, was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Central Government to take a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the designated authority. The matter is remitted to the Central Government to reconsider the recommendation made by the designated authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Failure to levy anti-dumping duty, Challenge to Office Memorandum, Remittal to Central Government for fresh decision

In the present case, the appellant, M/s SI Group India Private Limited, contested the failure of the Central Government to impose anti-dumping duty on imports of "Nonyl Phenol" from certain countries despite the designated authority's recommendation. The appeal sought to set aside the Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Finance, which decided against imposing the duty. Additionally, the appellant requested a directive for the Central Government to issue a notification for anti-dumping duty based on the authority's recommendation.

The Tribunal referred to a similar case, Jubilant Ingrevia Limited vs. Union of India, where the Central Government's decision not to impose anti-dumping duty was challenged. In that case, the Tribunal set aside the decision and remitted the matter to the Central Government for a fresh decision based on the authority's recommendation. The Tribunal highlighted that the Central Government must reconsider the recommendation within a reasonable timeframe, as specified in Rule 18. Consequently, the Tribunal in the present case set aside the Office Memorandum and directed the Central Government to review the recommendation in light of the previous decision. The appeal was allowed accordingly, following the principles established in the Jubilant Ingrevia Limited case.