9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ters of the product called 'Styrene Butadiene Rubber' (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods, for short) of 1500, 1700 and 1900 series, classified under Customs sub-heading No. 4002.19 of Customs Tariff Act. (ii) The respondent No. 1 is the Designated Authority. Respondent No. 2 is supposed to be one of the largest manufacturers of the subject goods in India. The respondent No. 3 is the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), who are entitled and have to issue the final Notification to finally impose the anti dumping duty, vide their notification. (iii) The petitioners, being the importers of the aforesaid subject goods from other countries, the respondent No. 2 appears to have felt an injury in their course of business, due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oresaid notification dated 2-6-1999, the petitioners, along with Automotive Tyre Manufacturers' Association (ATMA), who are also one of the importers of the subject goods, requested for a review of the anti dumping duty imposed on the import of the subject goods under Rule 23 of the Rules of 1995. The petitioners along with said ATMA requested for a review of the anti dumping duty imposed on the subject goods on the ground that there is only one manufacturer of the subject goods in India and that is the M/s. Synthetic Chemical Ltd. Bareilly (Uttar Pradesh), the Respondent No. 2 herein. 3.It is alleged in the petition that the respondent No. 2 has stopped their production with regard to the subject goods since July, 1999 and have also st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of all grades of Styrene Butadiene Rubber 1900 series. In the said finding, the respondent No. 1 mentioned the name of product under Series No. 1900 as High Styrene resin, master batch. However original name of the said product is Styrene Butadiene Rubber, is the allegation of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1, under Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1995 and Rules of 1995, notified a final finding vide Notification No. 30/1/97-ADD, dated 2-6-1999 with regard to the subject goods originating in or exported from Japan, U.S.A., Taiwan, Turkey and Korea RP. 6.The petitioners say that by virtue of the said notification, the Respondent No. 1 imposed anti dumping duty on the import of the subject goods imported by the petitioners from the subj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No. 3 to issue its final notification, finally imposing the anti dumping duty on the subject goods. The petitioners allege that even after a specific request made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 3 to issue its final notification, the respondent No. 3 failed to do so. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioners have filed this petition, claiming the directions and calling upon the respondent No. 3 to issue final notification, in view of the notification issued by the respondent No. 1 and to finally notify imposition of anti dumping duty on the subject goods, imported from subject countries, so that the petitioner can avail remedy of an appeal against the said notification. 8.On being notice of the petition, the respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
