9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ENERAL OF TRADE REMEDIES, GHW (VIETNAM) CO. LTD., M/S. GHW HOLDING COMPANY HONG KONG, SHENG LONG BIO-TEC INDIA PVT. LTD. AND UTTARA IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED PUNE [ 2021 (11) TMI 200 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . The decision taken by the Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty, despite a recommendation having been made by the designated authority for an imposition of anti-dumping duty, was set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was remitted to the Central Government to take a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the designated authority. In the present case, the stand of the Central Government is also that it had decided not to accept the recommendation made by the designated authority. The decision said to have been taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Senior Advocate and Ms. Reena Khair, Shre Rajesh Sharma, and Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Ratheesh M. Advocate for Respondent Shri Ameet Singh and Ms. Albeena Wali, Advocates for Designated Authority Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative of the Department ORDER JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA: Forum of Acrylic Fibre Manufactures, the appellant has filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the failure of the Central Government to levy anti-dumping duty on the imports of Acrylic Fibre , the subject goods originating in or exported from USA, Thailand, the subject Countries, even though the designated authority, in its final findings notified on 31.08.2020, had recommended imposition of anti-dump ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... comments submitted by the Government of India in the appeal filed by M/s. Jubilant Ingrevia Limited vs. Union of India and five others, Anti-Dumping Appeal No. 50461 of 2021 decided on 27.10.2021, be read as comments in this appeal also. It is on the basis of the comments that the learned authorised representative stated that the recommendation made by the designated authority in the final findings notified on 31.08.2020 was not accepted by the Central Government and thereafter the notification dated 11.11.2020 was issued rescinding the earlier notification dated 01.06.2015, by which anti-dumping duty was imposed, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such rescission. 5. Learned authorised representative has not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication of final findings by the designated authority, but as the matter is being remitted to the Central Government for taking a fresh decision, this limitation would not apply, as was observed by the Tribunal in M/s S. I. Group India Private Limited vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Antidumping and Allied Duties, Anti-dumping Appeal No. 50430 of 2019 decided on 21.02.2020. 48. The Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2020 is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted to the Central Government to reconsider the recommendation made by the designated authority in the light of the observations made above. The appeal would, therefore, have to allowed and is allowed to the extent indicated above. 7. In the present case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
