9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1569X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ufacturers, on the other hand is that in the absence of full details with respect to the sale price, ex-factory, at which the goods were sold to the Singapore trading concerns, and then imported into India, the entire picture would not be revealed. It is based largely on the latter argument that the DA appears to have concluded that the petitioner’s data cannot be analyzed, and taken into consideration for arriving at its export price and if at all the margin of dumping. Undoubtedly, this Court while exercising judicial review jurisdiction, in on-going quasi judicial or statutory proceedings, has to be nuanced and circumspect. It cannot, per se, express its opinion on the merits of the dispute. At the same time, the course of action advocated on behalf of the DA and the complainants cannot be entirely accepted. If the record discloses a basic flaw or irregular approach by the DA in the proceedings, the Court under Article 226 is not helpless. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s grievance can be best addressed by affording it an opportunity of making, what according to it, are relevant submissions, in writing to the Designated Authority with respect to the discl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsider and report in its final findings with respect to the margin of dumping based upon a determined export price. The impugned order was made prior to submission of final findings by the DA to the Government, in compliance of Rule 16 of the Rules. It contains certain observations which petitioner complains are detrimental to it. They are extracted as follows: Export price for M/s PT Indah Kiat Pulp Paper Tbk, Indonesia, PT Pindo Delhi Pulp and Paper Mills, Indonesia and PT Pabrik Kertas Tiiwi Kimia Tbk, Indonesia ( APP Group ) 40. From the response filed by producers/exporters in APP Group i.e. M/s PT Indah Kiat Pulp Paper Tbk,(IK) PT Pindo Delhi Pulp and Paper Mills (PD) and PT Pabrik Kertas Tjiwi Kimia Tbk,(TK) Indonesia, Authority notes that all companies have exported the product under consideration to India directly as well through unrelated exporters during the POI. IK has exported *** MT having value of USD *** either directly or through unrelated exporters in China, Hong Kong and Singapore. Similarly, PD had exported*** MT having value USD *** and TK has exported *** MT having value USD *** respectively. As informed by the producer, the exporters in China an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers/exporters whose production costs are known and traders whose costs may or may not be known or disclosed. 5. Learned counsel submitted that unless this Court intervenes at this stage, grave and serious prejudice would ensue because the Rule 16 disclosure statement, so far as it contains adverse observations, would place a seal of finality and the consequence in all likelihood would be adverse, as the petitioner would ultimately face residual anti-dumping duty which would be considerably higher than what might be proposed in respect of other exporting/manufacturing entities. 6. Learned counsel for the DA and the domestic manufacturer/exporters resisted these proceedings. It was pointed out by both the counsels that this Court should not intervene at the present stage, given that the petitioner has appellate remedies at a later stage, if and when the occasion so arises. Learned counsel here stated that the disclosure statement is only a step in aid of the final findings, which may or may not contain any adverse recommendations with respect to petitioner, or it may or may not recommend a higher duty as it now apprehends. It was submitted that furthermore, even such findings t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icle is not resold to an independent buyer or not resold in the condition as imported, on such reasonable basis as may be determined in accordance with the rules made under Sub-Section (6) . The primary mandate therefore, is that the DA is to determine, firstly the margin of dumping and also deduce the export price from the available data. The petitioner s objection to the impugned order is that the 40% of its production, imported into India through a Singapore trading entity (apparently funded by Chinese financers) are not related transactions. Its emphasis is upon its admitted capacity of production and the ex-factory price the facts relating to which, it says was, gathered by the Indian authorities upon inspection. The complaint of the Indian manufacturers, on the other hand is that in the absence of full details with respect to the sale price, ex-factory, at which the goods were sold to the Singapore trading concerns, and then imported into India, the entire picture would not be revealed. It is based largely on the latter argument that the DA appears to have concluded that the petitioner s data cannot be analyzed, and taken into consideration for arriving at its export price an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
