9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1111 - HC - CustomsImposition of Anti-dumping Duty - rejection of the Petitioners response due to a delay in submission - HELD THAT - Under Rule 8 the Designated Authority is to satisfy itself about the accuracy of the information supplied by interested parties. The manner in which the information is to be provided is also set out in the initiation notice and the questionnaire which is put up by the designated authority in the present case. Under Rule 8 the accuracy can be ascertained on the basis of the information provided by the interested parties. Paragraph number 89 of the disclosure statement in fact records various observations about the information gleaned from the response filed by the Petitioners. The said paragraph also specifically records that the reported transactions which are relied upon by the Petitioners do not allow the identification of the product which is to be exported which would be a very crucial aspect in the investigation itself. The system of imposition of anti-dumping duty does not end with the disclosure statement being published. In fact after the disclosure statement is published the authority has to determine the nature of the injury which the domestic industry is suffering and thereafter arrive at its preliminary findings or final findings in terms of the Rules. After arriving at such findings the anti-dumping duties are determined. The Petitioners are always at liberty to respond to the Designated Authority in respect of any grievances that they may have in the consideration of the data which has been given. In terms of the operating manual it cannot be stated that physical inspection is mandatory in every case. Moreover it depends upon the product concerned the nature of the injury which the domestic industry is suffering and the data which is furnished by the exporters/suppliers. In each and every case if physical inspection is mandated it would result in delay of the investigation. Upon seeing the facts of this case it cannot be said that adequate consideration has not been given at this stage. The Petitioners are free to file their responses and give any clarifications which they may deem appropriate to the disclosure statement which shall also be duly considered in terms of the Rules. Conclusion - The Court allowed the Petitioners additional time to submit their response in the correct format extending the deadline to 21st March 2025 and disposed of the petition accordingly. Petition disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Delay in Submission and Rejection of Response: The Petitioners faced rejection of their questionnaire response by the Designated Authority due to a delay in submission. The Court previously allowed the response to be recorded despite the delay, emphasizing the need for comprehensive investigation and participation by all interested parties. The Court held that a few minutes' delay should not exclude the Petitioners from the proceedings. Consideration of Petitioners' Response: The Petitioners argued that their response was not considered on its merits, with the Designated Authority focusing on the format rather than the content. The Court noted that the Designated Authority did review the response but found it lacking in clarity and completeness, particularly regarding the identification of exported products and the provision of necessary cost details. The Court observed that the Designated Authority's assessment was based on the information provided, as required under Rule 8 of the Customs Tariff Rules. Emphasis on Format Over Substance: The Petitioners contended that the Designated Authority improperly prioritized the format of their submission (PDF instead of Excel) over its substance. The Court acknowledged this issue but allowed the Petitioners to resubmit their data in Excel format, emphasizing that the format should not overshadow substantive content. Adherence to Customs Tariff Rules and Operating Manual: The Petitioners claimed that the Designated Authority did not follow the Customs Tariff Rules and the Manual of Operating Practices, particularly regarding verification procedures. The Court noted that physical verification is not mandatory in every case and depends on the specifics of the investigation. The Court found that the Designated Authority's procedures were consistent with the rules, given the circumstances. Maintainability of Writ Petition: The Respondents argued that the writ petition was premature at the disclosure statement stage, as it could lead to repeated court interventions. The Court recognized the time-bound nature of anti-dumping investigations and expressed reluctance to intervene at this stage. However, it did not find the petition to be entirely unmaintainable, allowing for further submissions by the Petitioners. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court emphasized the need for comprehensive participation in anti-dumping investigations, stating, "A few minutes' delay in the exporters' questionnaire response cannot oust the Petitioners' response from being heard and participating fully in the proceedings." The Court reiterated the importance of substance over form, allowing the Petitioners to resubmit their data in the required format, highlighting that procedural requirements should not overshadow substantive rights. The Court underscored the time-bound nature of anti-dumping investigations, indicating a preference for minimal judicial intervention at the disclosure statement stage, stating, "The system of imposition of anti-dumping duty does not end with the disclosure statement being published." Ultimately, the Court allowed the Petitioners additional time to submit their response in the correct format, extending the deadline to 21st March, 2025, and disposed of the petition accordingly.
|
