9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t constitute a valid reason to compel the initiation of a mid-term Review to effect changes that are of a routine nature and which do not affect the basis of the Findings. It is made clear, however, that if on examination of application made by such entity together with relevant documents the DA is of the view that such change in name affects the basis of the Findings, then it may, for reasons to be recorded, order a mid-term Review. In the present case the impugned communication issued to the Petitioner gives no reason whatsoever for requiring the Petitioner to go in for a midterm Review. It is also silent on whether the application made by the Petitioner with the enclosed documents was examined by the DA. Accordingly, the said decision as communicated by means of the impugned letter of the DA is hereby set aside. - Decided in favour of petitioner - W.P.(C) 4749/2016 - - - Dated:- 2-6-2016 - S. MURALIDHAR VIBHU BAKHRU JJ. For the Appellant: Mr Akhil Sibal, Mr Ashish Gupta, Mr Pradeep Chandra and Mr J. Mitra, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr Raghav Kapoor, Advocate along with Ms Suparna Srivastava, CGSC and Ms Shreya Sinha, Govt. Pleader O R D E R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner has placed on record a certificate issued by the Swedish Companies Registration Office on 2nd July 2015 taking note of the change in name from INEOS AG to Inovyn Sverige AB. 5. In the present petition, the Petitioner has categorically stated in para 13 that despite the change of name of the Petitioner, the cost of production, sources for procurement of raw material, production facilities, sales channels and cost of sales for sale, both within the EU market and the Indian market continued to remain the same. The relevant documents to show the address, the company registration number, VAT number of the Petitioner remain the same have been enclosed with the petition. 6. The Petitioner states that on account of change of name it could not avail the benefit of the definitive determination of Anti-Dumping Duty in its favour in the Final findings dated 4th April 2014. As a result it did not export PVC Suspension Resin to India after the change of name. 7. A joint application was filed by the Petitioner along with Inovyn Chlor Vinyls Ltd. before the DA on 18th December, 2015 certain seeking change of its name in the Final findings. It is stated that along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limited nature of the enquiry in a mid-term Review. 10. Mr. Raghav Kapoor, learned counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, sought to explain that even when there was a request for change of name of an entity mentioned in the Final findings, there was only one procedure prescribed under the law. He referred to the format application for a mid-term Review of anti-dumping duty. Among the reasons for seeking a mid-term Review are change in the legal status of the domestic producer(s) or exporter(s) and other relevant factors that may be relevant . A mere change of name of an entity is not mentioned as one of the reasons. It is contended by Mr Kapoor that there is no other procedure prescribed in the law for effecting any change in the Final Findings. Secondly, it is submitted that there is a possibility that in respect of the change in name objections may be raised by other interested parties and without notice being issued to them, which can happen only in a mid-term Review, the change of name cannot be effected in the Final Findings. Thirdly, it is submitted that the DA cannot be certain that although what is asked for is a mere change in the name, it would not affect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of name of an entity mentioned in the Final Findings rendered on 4th April 2014, it is necessary to examine the scope of a mid-term Review. 14. In the first place, it required to be noticed that in terms of Rule 23(1) the review is essentially for examining the need for the continued imposition of the anti-dumping duty. The DA will have to form an opinion on the basis of information received by it that there is no justification for the continued imposition of such duty . Under Rule 23 (2), the DA has twelve months from the date of initiation of such review to complete the exercise. 15. In Rishiroop Polymers (P) Ltd. v. DA (supra), the Supreme Court examined the scope of a mid-term Review in terms of Rule 23(1) of the Rules. It explained in para 36 of the decision as under: ....the scope of the review inquiry by the Designated Authority is limited to the satisfaction as to whether there is justification for continued imposition of such duty on the information received by it. By its very nature, the review inquiry would be limited to see as to whether the conditions which existed at the time of imposition of antidumping duty have altered to such an exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -dumping Duty in terms of the Final Findings dated 4th April 2014. In order to come to such conclusion there has to be preliminary level examination, with the participation, if necessary, of the Petitioner. From the certificate issued by the Swedish Companies Registration Office on 2nd July 2015 it appears that the only change was in its name. A mere change of name cannot alter the legal status of the entity. For instance, if a company is a party before a Court in a litigation and the name of the company has undergone a change in terms of the Companies Act then the Court would on an application by the party concerned permit the amendment to the memo of parties and to the cause title of the case. This is a routine exercise. After all the Court cannot examine if such a change in name is justified since that takes place with the approval of the Registrar of Companies. Likewise here the Swedish Companies Registration Office has recorded the change in the name of the Petitioner and has issued a certificate to that effect. This has happened subsequent to the Final Findings. This fact has to be taken note of by the DA and nothing more. The consequential change of the name of the Petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
