2022 (4) TMI 1049 - HC - Customs

Seeking directions to the respondents to take their responses to the questionnaires on record - seeking consideration of data comprising of the facts and figures stated therein as well as the documents and other materials filed along with the said response before arriving at any finding in the anti-dumping investigation - Order in rem or in personam - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that the order dated 4th June, 2021 is an order in personam as the relief had been extended by this Court to enable the petitioners therein (importers) to place information before the Designated Authority and not the petitioners herein (exporters). However, this Court is of the view that since in an anti-dumping investigation, the respondent has to pass a single consolidated order after hearing the exporters as well as the importers and the time limit for filing of objections by the importers had been extended by this Court vide order dated 4th June, 2021 beyond the next date of hearing i.e, 19th July, 2021, no useful purpose would be served by foreclosing the right of the exporters, i.e. the petitioners herein from filing their responses till 21st July, 2021. The responses filed by the petitioners between 25th June, 2021 and 31st July, 2021 are directed to be taken on record subject to the payment of costs of ₹ 1,00,000/- by each of the petitioners to Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund - Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Extension of time for filing responses to anti-dumping investigation questionnaires.
2. Interpretation of the order dated 4th June 2021, whether it was an order in rem or in personam.
3. Application of Rule 6(4) of the Anti-Dumping Rules regarding the extension of time limits.
4. Consistency in granting extensions in other anti-dumping investigations.
5. Applicability of the Supreme Court's order on extending the period of limitation due to COVID-19.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extension of time for filing responses to anti-dumping investigation questionnaires:
The petitioners sought directions for the respondents to consider their delayed responses to the anti-dumping investigation initiated on 15th May 2021. The petitioners argued that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, their replies were delayed and filed between 25th June 2021 and 21st July 2021. They contended that the respondents have the authority to condone such delays if sufficient cause is shown, citing Rule 6(4) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. The relevant portion of Rule 6(4) states that the designated authority may allow an extended period for submitting information upon showing sufficient cause.

2. Interpretation of the order dated 4th June 2021, whether it was an order in rem or in personam:
The petitioners argued that the order dated 4th June 2021, which extended the time limit for filing responses, was an order in rem, benefiting all interested parties, not just the petitioners in the case. They cited the relevant portion of the order, which extended the time limit provided in paragraph 25 of the Initiation Notification. However, the respondents contended that the order was an order in personam, applicable only to the petitioners in that specific case.

3. Application of Rule 6(4) of the Anti-Dumping Rules regarding the extension of time limits:
The petitioners highlighted that the respondents have granted extensions in other anti-dumping investigations initiated during the same period. They provided a table showing that out of 30 investigations, extensions were granted in 29 cases. The respondents, however, argued that the timeline for filing responses was not extended in this particular investigation, as clarified in their letters dated 24th June 2021 and 16th December 2021. They emphasized that Rule 17 of the Anti-Dumping Rules mandates the designated authority to determine the existence of dumping within one year from the initiation of the investigation, with a possible extension of six months in special circumstances.

4. Consistency in granting extensions in other anti-dumping investigations:
The petitioners presented evidence that extensions were granted in other anti-dumping investigations involving imports from China PR. They argued that repeated extensions were granted in several cases, indicating a precedent for allowing delayed responses. The respondents maintained that the extensions were granted based on specific circumstances and that the current investigation did not warrant such an extension.

5. Applicability of the Supreme Court's order on extending the period of limitation due to COVID-19:
The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court's order in Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, which extended the period of limitation due to the pandemic. The respondents countered this by citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sagufa Ahmed & Ors. Vs. Upper Assam Plywood Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., which clarified that the extension was intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented from initiating proceedings due to the pandemic.

Judgment:
The Court held that the order dated 4th June 2021 was an order in personam, benefiting only the petitioners in that specific case. However, the Court recognized that in an anti-dumping investigation, a single consolidated order must be passed after hearing both exporters and importers. Since the time limit for importers was extended, the Court found it reasonable to allow the exporters (petitioners) to file their responses until 21st July 2021. The Court directed the respondents to take the petitioners' responses on record, subject to each petitioner paying costs of ?1,00,000 to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within four weeks. The Court clarified that this order was passed considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

← Previous Next →