9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 665X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposition of provisional anti-dumping duty on different types of CPTs originating and exported from the subject countries came to be issued. The disclosure statement, after public hearing, was issued on 27-1-2009 inviting comments of the interested parties and such comments were submitted by the interested parties including the appellants by 9-2-2009. The final findings were issued under Notification No. 14/8/2007-DGAD dated 17-2-2009. Further, under Notification No. 14/8/2007-DGAD dated 27-2-2009, the Designated Authority issued corrigendum to the final findings dated 17-2-2009. The said corrigendum was sought to be challenged by way of Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi being Writ Petition No. (C) 7649/2009. By order dated 20-3-2009, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court set aside the said corrigendum and directed the petitioners to appear before the Designated Authority with further clarification that all the objections which were sought to be raised in the petition were left open to be decided by the Designated Authority. On remand of the matter, the Designated Authority after hearing the petitioners issued a fresh corrigendum dated 17-4-2009 under Notification No. 14/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Findings for imposition of anti-dumping duty. The Rules framed by the Government do not permit the Designated Authority to modify or alter the Final Findings and, therefore, the notification regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duty has necessarily to be on the basis of Final Findings and not on the basis of any alteration or modification therein by the Designated Authority. He further submitted that the law does not permit imposition of anti-dumping duty in foreign currency. The impugned notification which is based on corrigendum imposes duty in foreign currency and, therefore, the same is bad in law. He further submitted that in the absence of any power to review the order, the corrigendum issued by the Designated Authority is to be held as without jurisdiction and in that regard placed reliance in the decision in the matter of Harbhajan Singh v. Karam Singh and Others reported in AIR 1966 SC 641. Attention was also drawn to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 446 (S.C.). 5. The Advocates appearing on other side submitted that the Final Findings and the corrigendum are merely recommendatory i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h corrigendum was issued on 17-4-2009. (vii) Final notification was issued on 15-5-2009. (viii) Prior to 15-5-2009, no other notification imposing anti-dumping duty on the basis of the final findings dated 17-2-2003 was issued by the Government. 7. The order dated 20-3-2009 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi clearly recorded that the learned Additional Solicitor General had refuted the legal correctness of the proposition sought to be canvassed in relation to corrigendum on behalf of the petitioners. However, as regards opportunity of hearing not being given by the Designated Authority, there was some amount of concession on behalf of the Additional Solicitor General and accordingly the corrigendum dated 27-2-2009 was set aside and the petitioners were directed to appear before the Designated Authority with the specific observation that the appearance before the Designated Authority shall not be construed as waiver by the petitioner of its objection as to jurisdiction and the said objection can be raised before the Designated Authority who shall decide the same. Pursuant to the said order passed by the High Court, the matter came up before the Designated Authority and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conclusion of the investigation and before arriving at Final Findings, the Designated Authority has to inform all of the interested parties about the essential facts which could form the basis for the Final Findings. The Final Findings can be issued within one year from the date of initiation of investigation and this period can be extended by six months by the Central Government in its discretion in special circumstances. Such findings are to be submitted to the Central Government recommending the amount of duty, which, if levied, would remove the injury which would be otherwise suffered by the domestic industry. 11. Rule 18(1) specifically provides that Central Government may within three months of the date of publication of the Final Findings by the Designated Authority under Rule 17, impose by notification in the official gazette, upon importation into India of the article covered by the Final Findings, anti- dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping as determined under Rule 17. 12. It is also pertinent to note that Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules specifically deals with the power of mid-term review to the Designated Authority. Sub-rule (1) thereof, provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igendum which undoubtedly comprised of certain modification regarding the currency were issued on 17-4-2009, that is much prior to issuance of notification imposing the duty. 15. To the specific query to the learned Advocate as to whether there is anything on record to disclose that the Government had accepted the Final Findings prior to issuance of the corrigendum dated 17-4-2009, the learned Counsel fairly conceded that there is no such material available to disclose that the Government had accepted the Final Findings prior to 17-4-2009. Being so, there is absolutely no substance in the first ground of challenge. 16. It is sought to be strenuously argued on behalf of the appellants that there was no consideration of the points canvassed by the appellants regarding the absence of jurisdiction while issuing the corrigendum by the Designated Authority. In fact, this contention already stands answered by the observations and the finding in the corrigendum quoted herein above. Taking note of the exact nature of the objection which was sought to be raised on behalf of the appellants, the Designated authority framed the two issues quoted above and clearly arrived at the find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Ram Chandra Singh case, the Apex Court were dealing with the matter wherein an application for clarification and order for modification of a judgment was filed on the ground of factual error having crept in the judgement as those could not be pointed out at the time of hearing of the appeal on account of absence of the party. While dealing with the said case, it was ruled that under the garb of correction of mistakes arising out of accidental slip or typographical error, the judgement cannot be altered or modified by the Court in exercise of its inherent power. Apparently, the Apex Court was dealing with the powers of the Court in relation to its jurisdiction to review and to correct the mistake in the judgement and orders passed by the Court. 19. In Madras University Teachers' Association case, the High court was dealing with a matter relating to the validity of the order appointing a person to the office of Vice Chancellor of Madras University. The grievance of the petitioner therein was that the recommendation of names by the second search committee was bad in law as the search committee had become functus officio as they had already submitted a panel of three persons al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of investigation was extended by six months. In other words, the period of investigation which started from 19-11-2007 was required to be completed on 18-5-2009. In other words the original corrigendum was issued within the period prescribed under the provisions of law. 24. As regards the corrigendum dated 17-4-2009 is concerned, obviously, the same was also issued within the period prescribed for the completion of the notification, even the final notification was issued on 15-5-2009. Being so, the issue regarding bar of limitation as such does not arise for consideration in the matter. 25. As regards the last ground of challenge which relates to the powers of the Designated Authority to refer the duty element in US $ instead of Indian currency, the respondents are justified in drawing our attention to the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in Pig Iron Manufacturers, Association case. Therein, it was clearly held that Section 14 of the Customs Act relates to valuation of goods for customs duty and Section 15 relates to exchange rate to be adopted for the purpose of customs duty. It was clearly ruled that "We do not find any bar in either of the Sections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
