9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r this Court to intervene and interdict with the impugned notifications - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - W.P. (C) No. 9462 of 2016, C.M. Appl. Nos. 37861-37863/2016 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2016 - S. Ravindra Bhat and Deepa Sharma, JJ. Shri Akhil Sibbal, Sr. Advocate with Aditya Mukherjee and Vikram Shah, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Reena Khair, Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Rita Jha and Rajdipa Behura with Ms. Garima Singh Yadav and Ms. Philomon Kani, Advocates, , Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER The petitioner challenges the notification dated 12-4-2016 [hereafter the notification ] issued by the respondents for initiation of Countervailing Duty/Anti-Subsidy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailable could result in prejudice to the manufacturers of other or both articles. It is secondly urged that the question of subsidy, manufacturing and economic matrices has already been subject to intense scrutiny in anti-dumping proceedings which culminated in the imposition of duty which in turn depended upon the margin of injury and fixed incomes of each exporter from different countries. After subjecting the concerned practice to such an intensive review and scrutiny, the effort of the domestic manufacturers to get the enquiry into the countervailing measures/anti-subsidy investigation underway is nothing but an attempt to overreach the concluded process in the anti-dumping regime which has resulted in imposition of high rates of anti-d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y supporting the application account for less than twenty five per cent of the total production of the like product by the domestic industry, and (b) it examines the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application and satisfies itself that there is sufficient evidence regarding - (i) subsidy, (ii) injury, where applicable; and (iii) where applicable, a casual link between such subsidized imports and the alleged injury, to justify the initiation of an investigation. Explanation. - For the purpose of this rule, the application shall be considered to have been made by or on behalf of domestic industry if it is supported by those domestic producers whose collective output constitutes more than fift ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be directed; and (vi) the time-limits allowed to interested countries and interested parties for making their views known. (2) A copy of the public notice shall be forwarded by the designated authority to the known exporters of the article alleged to have been subsidized, the government of the exporting country concerned and other interested parties. (3) The designated authority shall also provide a copy of the application referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 to - (i) the known exporters or the concerned trade association where the number of exporters is large, and (ii) the government of the exporting country : Provided that the designated authority shall also make available a copy of the application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by one party to other interested parties participating in the investigation. (8) In a case where an interested party refuses access to, or otherwise does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, or significantly impedes the investigation, the designated authority may record its findings on the basis of facts available to it and make such recommendations to the Central Government as it deems fit under such circumstances. 3. Rules 6 and 7 outline the necessary elements which the Designated Authority has to keep in mind. Rule 6(3) pointedly states that it is to be determined on the basis of an examination of the degree of support for, or opposition to the application expressed by domestic producers of the like arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court to stall the proceedings. The petitioner has every right to contest the initiation with respect to both the articles, i.e. Hot Rolled and Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Flat Products. Furthermore, as to whether while determining the appropriate margin of injury and fixing the anti-dumping duty, the exporters in China were deemed to be from a non-market economy and that has a relevant bearing on the investigation in the identification/subsidy rules or not is a matter that should not be prejudged by this Court but rather determined by the Designated Authority on a fuller enquiry. Whilst there is possibility of overlapping between the two, at the same time, there cannot be presumption of an overlapping that the petitioner seems to urge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
