2011 (8) TMI 923 - AT - Customs

Tribunal remands cases for post-decisional hearings, parties allowed to participate within six months

The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the cases to the Designated Authority (DA) for post-decisional hearings, directing necessary modifications ... Principal of Natural Justice - Anti Dumping Duties - Public hearing was held before one DA, final findings were by another DA - Held That :- In view of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association (ATMA) vs. Designated Authority (2011 - TMI - 201474 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ), we allow these appeals by remand to the DA for affording post-decisional hearing to the appellants and for making such modifications to the final findings as may be necessary as a result of such post-decisional hearing. The respondent-domestic industry and other interested parties, if any, shall also be allowed to participate in such post-decisional hearing. Issues Involved:1. Violation of principles of natural justice.2. Non-provision of fresh public hearing by the successor Designated Authority (DA).3. Treatment of Huawei Technologies as a non-cooperative exporter.4. Challenge to the Final Findings and consequent anti-dumping duties.5. Economic consequences of setting aside anti-dumping duties.6. Tribunal's power to remand cases.Detailed Analysis:Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:The appellants contended that the principles of natural justice were violated as the public hearings were conducted by one DA, while the Final Findings were delivered by another DA without a fresh hearing. This contention was based on the Supreme Court decision in ATMA vs. Designated Authority (2011), which mandates a fresh hearing by the successor DA.Non-provision of Fresh Public Hearing by the Successor DA:The undisputed fact was that the public hearings were given by one officer, while the Final Findings were delivered by another officer without a fresh hearing. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in ATMA (2011) disapproved the practice of not providing a fresh hearing by the successor DA. However, the Tribunal emphasized that this judgment came after the impugned Final Findings were issued.Treatment of Huawei Technologies as a Non-cooperative Exporter:Huawei Technologies, a Chinese exporter, was treated as a non-cooperative exporter for allegedly not providing the required information during the anti-dumping investigation. The company approached the High Court of Bombay, which directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within four weeks.Challenge to the Final Findings and Consequent Anti-dumping Duties:The appeals challenged the Final Findings of the DA and the consequent anti-dumping duties notified by the Finance Ministry. The Tribunal noted that anti-dumping duties are meant to protect domestic industry against unfair trade practices by foreign exporters.Economic Consequences of Setting Aside Anti-dumping Duties:The domestic industry argued that setting aside the anti-dumping duties would cause continued injury due to dumping. The Tribunal agreed that merely setting aside the Final Findings and removing the anti-dumping duties would not be just for the domestic industry and would have serious economic consequences.Tribunal's Power to Remand Cases:The Tribunal concluded that it has the power to remand cases for further investigation. It cited several precedents and legal provisions supporting its power to remand, including Section 9C(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and Rule 41 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeals by remanding the cases to the DA for post-decisional hearings. The DA was directed to make necessary modifications to the Final Findings based on these hearings. The domestic industry and other interested parties were also allowed to participate in the post-decisional hearings. The process was to be completed within six months, maintaining the status quo in the meantime. The Tribunal emphasized that this approach would be just and fair for all parties involved while adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring economic stability.Pronouncement:The judgment was pronounced in open Court on 11.8.2011.