9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ees – Held that:- Anti-dumping duty is fixed after a finding that foreign goods are sold at less than their normal value in the Indian market causing injury to domestic producers. The amount of dumping margin is worked out in dollar terms as all aspects of trade are in US$. Section 9A stipulates that anti-dumping duty shall not exceed dumping margin. anti-dumping duty should be fixed in dollar terms so that erosion of the quantum of protection does not take place on account of changes in the exchange rate”. appeals dismissed. - AD/10-12/2009 - AD/15-17/2011(PB), - Dated:- 17-6-2011 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparker, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Shri M.V. Ravindran, JJ. S/Shri S. Ganeshan, Sr. Advocate with N.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Ameet Singh and Ms. Pooja Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondent. S/Shri S. Seetharaman with Atul Gupta, Advocates for Domestic Industry. [Order per : Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President (Oral)]. Heard at length the learned Advocates for the parties on both the sides and perused the records. 2. The notification regarding the initiation of the investigation in terms of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mid term review. 3. The Designated Authority has no power to impose Anti-Dumping duty in terms of any foreign currency and anti dumping duty can be imposed only in Indian rupees. 4. The imposition of anti-dumping duty could have been only be in terms of the Final Findings dated 17-2-2009 issued by the Designated Authority unless those were altered in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal, and not otherwise. 4. Learned Advocate for the Appellants drawing our attention to the order of the Hon ble Delhi High Court submitted that the impugned corrigendum apparently discloses various submissions made by the appellants including relating to the absence of jurisdiction to the Designated Authority to issue corrigendum to the Final Findings and yet the authority failed to deal with the same and thereby erred in non-complying with the specific directions issued by the Hon ble High Court. He submitted that the Designated Authority s function comes to an end moment his recommendations are submitted to the Government and only jurisdiction which the Authority enjoys thereafter is in relation to mid term review in terms of Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. According to learned Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in relation to currency from Indian rupee to $ (US) was in terms of the requirement of law and, therefore, no fault can be found in that regard. It was mere error or accidental slip and hence could have been corrected even under inherent power by the Designated Authority. Reliance was also placed in the decision of the Madras High Court in the matter of Madras University Teachers Association v. The Chancellor, University of Madras and Ors. reported in (1995) 1MLJ13, as well as or of the Supreme Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 2000 (118) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.). Reliance was also placed in the decision in the matter of Pig Iron Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 67, Hari Singh v. Sher Singh reported in 1988 RLR 658 = MANU/DE/0110/1988. 6. Considering the rival contentions in the matter, it would be appropriate to take note of certain undisputed facts in the matter :- (i) The preliminary findings were issued on 24-7-2008. (ii) Disclosure statement was issued on 27-1-2009. (iii) Final Findings were issued on 17-2-2009. (iv) Corrigendum was issued on 27-2-2009 (v) Fligh Court set asi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impose the duty, by notification in the official gazette. It may be seen that the inherent power to notify duties are with the Central Government. The use of word may give an option to the Central Government to agree with the recommendations of the authority or not. The recommendation of the authority attains finality only after these are notified by the Central Government . Having observed as above, the Designated Authority came to the following finding :- Thus, it is after acceptance and notification of the recommendations of the authority under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 that it becomes the order of the Central Government and attains finality and then only the issue of functus officio arises. Till such notification, the recommendation of the Designated authority does not attain finality . 10. Perusal of the Notification No. 2/95-Cus. (N.T.), dated 1-1-1995 as amended from time to time which is comprised under Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment, and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter called as Anti-Dumping Rules ) disclose that the same are framed under sub-section 6 of Section 9A and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... signated Authority to make necessary recommendations based on factual data about alteration in the imposition of such duty. Undoubtedly, such recommendations are to be made only on satisfaction about the information that there is need for such alteration in the imposition of duty. Occasion to get satisfied accordingly can arise only after necessary investigation in that regard pursuant to the review of the situation including the Final Findings which preceded the imposition of levy and further obligation to make necessary recommendations based on such review. Very fact that the Designated Authority has such power of review even after issuance of the notification imposing the duty subsequent to the submission of the final recommendation would disclose that in the absence of specific provision debarring the Designated Authority from making further recommendations for alteration or modification in the Final Findings before such findings are accepted by the Government, such prohibition for modification or alteration or for making further recommendation by the Designated Authority to the Central Government cannot be read into the said Rules. 14. In the case in hand, undisputedly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not have reviewed his earlier order. Reference was made to the decision of Lord Esher in Drew v. Willis reported in 1891-1 QB 450 and of the Madras High Court in Anantharaju Shetty v. Appu Hegade reported in AIR 1919 Mad. 244. In sum and substance, it was held that the authorities passing order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction exercises quasi-judicial function and in the absence of specific power to review such orders under the statute under which they function, it is not permissible for such authorities to review their earlier order. One fails to understand the applicability of this decision to the matter in hand. It is nowhere held that the Designated Authority functioning under the Anti dumping Rules to be the quasi-judicial authority. Undoubtedly, the proceedings in the course of investigation by such authority are held to be on par with those before any quasi-judicial authority. Merely because the proceedings partake the colour of quasi-judicial proceedings that does not transform the investigating agency into a quasi-judicial body. There is a distinction between authority itself being a quasi-judicial authority and the proceedings conducted before a non quasi-judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty are purely recommendatory in nature. Obviously, therefore, the decision supports the view that we are taking in the matter. 21. The decision in Hari Singh case can be of no help to the respondent, it was in relation to the power of the civil court under Section 151 and 152 of the Court of Civil Procedure Code. 22. Before we deal with the third ground of challenge, it would be also necessary to deal with the one more aspect of the matter to which a passing reference was made by the learned Advocate of the appellants in the course of his arguments and that relates to the period of investigation. It was sought to be contended that in terms of the provision of law comprised under Anti-Dumping Rules, a specific period of one year and further extension of six months is prescribed for the completion of investigation, the Designated Authority cannot have powers beyond the said period to make further recommendations. In fact, the said issue does not arise at all in the matter. 23. Undisputedly, the initial notification was issued on 19-11-2007. Preliminary findings were issued on 24-7-2008. The disclosure was issued on 27-1-2009. The Final findings issued on 17-2-2009. The corrigen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
