9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he DA. It is not anybody’s case that the final finding, as such, should be as per disclosure statement only. That will be against the concept of disclosing available facts and calling for comments. Here, it is to be noted that even if further opportunity is provided to rebut the statements of the DI after the final disclosure, the same will be contrary to time-limit of 40 days for filing EQR by the interested parties. It would appear that the appellants were having different related entities managing in different inter-connected operations. They should have been well aware of the implications of such inter-connection in the analysis of AD duty investigation. We also note that the original investigation in the present case was concluded in January, 2015 and AD duty was imposed in April, 2015. The appellants had provision of mid-term review in terms of Rule 23 of the AD Rules. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Anti Dumping Appeals No. 52516-52517 of 2015 with ROA Applications No. 50842-50843 of 2017 - Final Order No. 50824-50825/2018 - Dated:- 28-2-2018 - Hon ble Shri Justice Dr. Satish Chandra, President, Hon ble Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Hon ble An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the High Court vide order dated 16/08/2017. The High Court declined to entertain these petitions holding that the petitioner is at liberty to approach CESTAT with fresh petitions in terms of the liberty already granted by the CESTAT. Accordingly, the appellants filed these applications for restoration of their appeals and to hear the matter on merit. 4. It is also to be noted that during the pendency of the proceedings in the Delhi High Court, respondent No.3, domestic industry (DI) filed appeal before the Tribunal which was disposed-of upholding the notification enforcing AD duty. 5. With the above background, having heard the applicant and the other interested parties including learned Counsel for the DA, we recall our earlier order dated 05/09/2016 and restore the appeals to their original numbers. As the appellants requested for expeditious disposal of the matter as the customs notification is dated 07/04/2015 and considerable time has lapsed after the introduction of the said levy, we have taken-up the appeals for final decision. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for both the appellants submitted that the first appellant, M/s Shell Eastern Petroleum (Pte) Limited ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme Court in M/s S S Enterprises, (2005) 3 SCC 337 held that Rule 14 can come into operation in early preliminary finding stage itself. Thus emphasizing the ground of the appellants regarding violation of principles of natural justice on the part of the DA, the learned Counsel for the appellant prayed for setting-aside the final finding and the customs notification in so far as they relate to imposition of AD duty on the appellants as producer/exporter of the goods. 11. The learned Counsel for the DA opposed the appeals. He submitted that in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act and the Rules made there under, the DA issued questionnaire to the exporters/importers to obtain the information, deemed necessary, for the subject investigation and to form an opinion as to the dumping of the subject goods. The DA has followed all the statutory procedure as stipulated under the said rules before arriving at his finding. Elaborating the chronology of events starting from the receipt of application from M/s Manali Petro Chemicals Limited up to the date of issue of a final finding, the learned Counsel for the DA emphasized that the DA has followed all the procedures as per t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erials. The disclosure statement is primarily to make public the data, information and essential facts as made available to the DA for forming an opinion. In case any of the interested parties considers that certain facts or information of significant importance has not been properly considered or has been left- out, the same can be brought to the notice of DA for due consideration. In other words, the disclosure statement is not the final conclusion and there is no legal premise to hold that the same cannot be varied in the final finding. The final finding will necessarily be based on further comments/corrections as examined and concluded by the DA on the disclosure statement. While notifying the disclosure, the interested parties were categorically informed that the reproduction of facts therein does not tantamount to either acceptance or rejection of any of these submissions including claimed facts. It is clear that not withstanding the facts given in the said disclosure statement, the DA would consider all replies given on merit, in order to arrive at a final determination. It is a fact that at the time of making disclosure statement, the information available with the DA indic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
