9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate for the Domestic Industry ORDER Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they are directed against a common cause of action of the Designated Authority. The appeals are essentially against the Final Finding dated 10.2.2012 of the Designated Authority passed in the Mid-term Review investigation concerning Anti-Dumping duty imposed on imports of Sodium Tripoly Phospate (STPP) originated in or exported from China PR; though in the appeal memorandum, the appellants have impugned the original Final Finding of the Designated Authority recorded on 3.5.2011 and the consequent notification No. 58/2011-Cus. dated 8.7.2011. 2. As per facts on record, M/s. Tata Chemical Ltd., Mumbai, a domestic manufacturer of STPP filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icals Ltd. and M/s. Rhodia Specialty Chemicals India Ltd. and there being no other known manufacturer for the said goods, there was no justification for continuation of the Anti-Dumping duty. The Designated Authority also observed that the Domestic Industry i.e. M/s. Tata Chemicals had stopped their production in March, 2011 itself i.e. during the period of initial investigation, on the basis of which the Final Finding proposing imposition of Anti Dumping duty were arrived at but the said information was not provided to the Designated Authority by M/s. Tata Chemicals. Further, M/s. Rhodia Specialty Chemicals India Ltd. had also stopped their production and surrendered their registration certificate to the Central Excise authority but did no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... country has attracted Anti-Dumping duty and the same was withdrawn with effect from 22.2.2012 with a clause of non-applicability to the things done or omitted to be done before such rescission. The Appellant is aggrieved with the said exception clause of the Notification and it is their plea that the Designated Authority should have recommended withdrawal of the Anti-Dumping duty with retrospective effect. 7. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri T D Satish, learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant and Shri Amit Singh, learned Advocate appearing for the Designated Authority and Shri Govind Dixit, learned DR appearing for the Revenue, we note that the facts in the present case are not in dispute. Admittedly, during the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gorical finding of the Designated Authority that such information would have definitely led to stopping of investigations. No doubt the Indian Domestic Industry was under an obligation to reveal the fact of stoppage of production to the Designated Authority during the course of first investigation itself. However, having not disclosed, the Designated Authority proceeded ahead on the basis of information available on records and came to a categorical Final Finding vide his order dated 3.5.2011. Such Final Finding by the Designated Authority were not challenged by the appellant or the exporters and as such, attained finality. It is only vide mid-term review that a conclusion contrary to the first Finding was arrived at and according to us Des ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
