2021 (11) TMI 619 - AT - Customs

Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - imports of Acrylic Fibre - Notification dated 01.06.2015 earlier issued imposing anti-dumping duty has been rescinded - seeking direction to the Central Government to issue a notification for imposition of anti-dumping duty, based on the recommendation made by the designated authority in the final findings dated 31.08.2020 - HELD THAT - The issues raised in this appeal are issues which were considered by the Tribunal 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 decision taken by the Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty, despite a recommendation having been made by the designated authority for an imposition of anti-dumping duty, was set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was remitted to the Central Government to take a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the designated authority. In the present case, the stand of the Central Government is also that it had decided not to accept the recommendation made by the designated authority. The decision said to have been taken by the Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty, despite a recommendation having been made by the designated authority for imposing of anti-dumping duty, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Central Government for taking a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the designated authority - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Failure to levy anti-dumping duty on imports of Acrylic Fibre despite recommendation by designated authority.

Analysis:

The appeal was filed by the Forum of Acrylic Fibre Manufacturers challenging the failure of the Central Government to impose anti-dumping duty on imports of Acrylic Fibre from specific countries, despite the designated authority recommending such imposition for a period of five years. The relief sought was the setting aside of the Office Memorandum rescinding the earlier notification imposing anti-dumping duty and a direction for the Central Government to issue a new notification based on the recommendation of the designated authority. The history revealed that anti-dumping duty was previously imposed and continued through sunset reviews, with the designated authority recommending the imposition of anti-dumping duty in its final findings dated 31.08.2020.

The Union of India, represented by its authorized representative, stated that the recommendation of the designated authority was not accepted by the Central Government, leading to the issuance of a notification rescinding the earlier anti-dumping duty notification. The authorized representative did not provide an Office Memorandum conveying the decision but relied on comments indicating the rejection of the recommendation. The issues raised mirrored those in a previous case, Jubilant Ingrevia Limited, where the Tribunal set aside the decision of the Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty and remitted the matter for a fresh decision based on the designated authority's recommendation.

In alignment with the decision in Jubilant Ingrevia Limited, the Tribunal set aside the Central Government's decision not to impose anti-dumping duty and remitted the matter for a fresh decision based on the recommendation of the designated authority. The notification rescinding the earlier anti-dumping duty imposition was directed to abide by the new decision of the Central Government. Therefore, the appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, emphasizing the need for the Central Government to reconsider the recommendation made by the designated authority in this case.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal proceedings, the history of anti-dumping duty imposition, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on previous precedents and legal principles.