9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lfilled - The Authority, as the reply would show, did as a matter of fact, grant a personal hearing and despite adequate opportunities, no material was produced in regard to the position of the industry as a whole - The order of the Designated Authority is therefore, neither lacking in jurisdiction nor is it in breach of the principles of natural justice - Moreover, the termination of the investigation would not preclude the Petitioner from applying afresh, in accordance with law. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad supported the application provided the requisite information by 24 August 2010, failing which it was stated that the application would be treated as withdrawn. This was followed by a letter dated 27 August 2010 granting an extension of time as sought by the Petitioner until 30 August 2010. The Petitioner was once again reminded that the supporting industry would have to submit data by that date. The Petitioner thereafter, addressed a communication on 30 August 2010 by which a disclosure of information was made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner followed this with a further communication of 16 September 2010. A personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner by the Designated Authority on 26 October 2010. In the affidavit in reply, (to which there is no traverse to the contrary), it has been stated that the Petitioner assured that the requisite information and data from MSL would be submitted within a period of two weeks. No data was submitted by the supporting manufacturers. 5. Eventually, by an order dated 18 November 2010, the Designated Authority terminated the investigation, holding that while the Petitioner had a 27% share of domestic production, the balance was held in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity has to consider the position of the industry as a whole; (vi) The failure of the Petitioner and the supporting manufacturers to adduce relevant information in regard to costing and injury over the period under investigation was a circumstance which would have a significant bearing on the question as to whether there was an adverse impact on the industry as a whole; and (vii) The Authority was justified, in the circumstances, in terminating the investigation in spite of which, it would be still open to the Petitioner to submit a fresh application; if it is so advised, complete with requisite information. 8. During the course of the proceedings, we have also permitted the intervention of M/s. Kirtanlal International DMCC, Dubai and the China Iron and Steel Association. The Court has been informed that both the interveners had produced information before the Designated Authority, in response to the notification initiating investigation. 9. Under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, where any article is exported from any country or territory to India at less than its normal value, the Central Government is empowered by notification in the Official Gazette, to im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 5 brings in a deeming provision under which the application shall be deemed to have been made by or on behalf of a domestic industry, if it is supported by those domestic producers whose collective output constitutes more than 50% of the total production of the like article produced by that portion of the domestic industry expressing either support for or opposition, as the case may be, to the application. 11. Rule 6 lays down the principles governing the investigation. Rule 10 deals with the determination of the normal value, export price and margin of dumping. Rule 11 provides for the determination of injury to the domestic industry, threat of injury to domestic industry or material retardation in the establishment of domestic industry, and a causal link between dumped imports and the injury. The principles which underlie such a determination have been enunciated in Annexure-II to the Rules. Under Rule 12, the Designated Authority is empowered to enter a preliminary finding. 12. Rule 14 of the Rules, provides for the circumstances under which an investigation may be terminated. Rule 14 is to the following effect. "14. Termination of investigation. - The designate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd (iii) a causal link between dumping and the resulting injury. The Rules contemplate that this determination by the Authority has to be made with reference to the domestic industry as a whole. This principle indeed is no longer res-integra. In Reliance Industries Limited v. Designated Authority and Ors. - (2006) 10 SCC 368 = 2006 (202) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.), the Supreme Court noted that the entire investigation, analysis, recommendations and impositions are for the product under consideration for the whole domestic industry and not for an individual company. It is in this background, that the Rules contemplate a disclosure at every stage of relevant facts which would establish the existence of dumping, the injury which is sustained by domestic industry and a causal link between the two. Under the Anti-Dumping Application Proforma, every applicant is required to furnish relevant information inter alia in regard to : (i) the imported product; (ii) the profile of Indian industry; (iii) evidence of dumping; (iv) evidence of injury; (v) evidence of causal link; and (vi) costing information. The disclosure in relation to the evidence of injury requires information inter alia in regard to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... domestic industry. The Designated Authority has, by its impugned order dated 18 November 2010, come to the conclusion that the analysis of the limited and partial data submitted by MSL, who is the major producer of the goods in India, does not show any injury from the alleged dumped imports of goods. This is a pure finding of fact which has been arrived at by the Authority. The Authority has noticed that in the absence of complete information for the injury period, from the major producer of the goods in the country, a combined analysis for the determination of injury over the injury period for the industry of the goods in India cannot be carried out. On these grounds, the investigation has been terminated. 17. Rule 14(b) of the Rules empowers the Designated Authority to terminate the investigation immediately if it is satisfied in the course of an investigation, that there is no sufficient evidence of dumping or, where applicable, of injury, to justify the continuation of the investigation. In the absence of data relating to the industry in question, the Authority was justified in coming to the conclusion. The facts on the record would indicate that sufficient opportunities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
