9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner as non-cooperative , at this point in time, is only preliminary in nature - The DA will have to consider the information supplied by the petitioner and thereafter conclude one way or the other as to whether or not the petitioner ought to be categorized as non-cooperative . The official respondents i.e., respondent nos.1 and 2, are put to notice that they would bear in mind the assertion made by the petitioner, which is, that the transaction data was furnished only on 05.09.2022, and therefore, it would require, if not more, at least a couple of days for responding to the same - Petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 12894/2022 & CM Nos.39167-69/2022 - - - Dated:- 6-9-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was formerly known as Sandvik Materials Technology (China) Co. Limited. 7. Mr Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that information has been sought by the Designated Authority (DA) from the Indian company, i.e., Sandvik Materials Technology India Private Limited [hereafter referred to as SMTIL ], which has no role to play in the investigation carried out by the DA. 7.1 In particular, in support of this plea, our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 82 and 83 of the aforementioned disclosure statement. For the sake of convenience, the said paragraphs are extracted hereafter: Export price for Sandvik Materials Technology (China) Co., Ltd. 82. The response filed by Sandvik Mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Duty (ADD). 8. Mr Jain also submits that, in the event, the DA chooses to recommend imposition of ADD, it has to be crystallized vis- -vis each known exporter or producer of the article under consideration. 8.1. In this behalf, Mr Jain has referred to Rule 17(3) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti- Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury), Rules 1995 [hereafter referred to as 1995 Rules ]. 8.2. This apart, Mr Jain says that the petitioner has received the purported transaction data almost at the eleventh hour. According to him, the transaction data was submitted to the petitioner only on 05.09.2022, albeit, after 5 P.M. 9. Mr Ravi Prakash, who appears on behalf of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 2(c) of the 1995 Rules. 13.1 Based on these provisions, it is contended by Mr Sethi that the DA could seek information from the Indian company i.e., SMTIL, as it is an interested party . 13.2 Furthermore, Mr Sethi also says that the Indian company/SMITL and the exporter are related parties and therefore, this information, in any event, can be sought by the DA from the Indian company/SMITL. 14. In our view, these are the aspects which the DA will have to deal with, while returning a final finding under Rule 17 of the 1995 Rules. 15. The other concern of the petitioner is that it has already been labelled as non-cooperative , disregarding the fact that the petitioner has been furnishing information, as and when information has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kash says that in terms of Rule 17 of the 1995 Rules, the DA is required to conclude the investigation within one year from the date of initiation of the investigation. 17.2 On the other hand, our attention has been drawn by Mr Jain to the proviso appended to Rule 17 (1), which, inter alia, states that the Central Government may, in its discretion in special circumstances, extend further the aforesaid period of one year by six months. 18. Given this circumstance, the official respondents i.e., respondent nos.1 and 2, are put to notice that they would bear in mind the assertion made by the petitioner, which is, that the transaction data was furnished only on 05.09.2022, and therefore, it would require, if not more, at least a couple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
