TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal overturns anti-dumping duty on coumarin due to lack of fair hearing, emphasizes stakeholder rights</h1> <h3>FRAGRANCES & FLAVOURS ASSCN. OF INDIA Versus DESIGNATED AUTHORITY</h3> FRAGRANCES & FLAVOURS ASSCN. OF INDIA Versus DESIGNATED AUTHORITY - 2011 (270) E.L.T. 733 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Challenge to imposition of anti-dumping duty on coumarin; Violation of principles of natural justice; Concerns of user Association not considered; Designated Authority's Final Findings without a hearing; Appellant-Association's representation disregarded; Credentials as an Interested party questioned; Designated Authority's decision to levy anti-dumping duty; Compliance with statutory time-limit; Granting a personal hearing before recommending duty.Analysis:The appeal challenges the imposition of anti-dumping duty on coumarin, representing tiny, small, and medium-sized manufacturers and exporters. The appellant argues that the duty adversely affects numerous consumers and benefits a monopolistic domestic producer. They claim lack of notice during the investigation and challenge the Final Findings without a personal hearing, alleging a violation of natural justice.The domestic industry defends the duty, stating closure of two producers due to dumping and potential closure of the sole remaining manufacturer. Citing a Supreme Court decision, they argue against addressing monopolistic practices under anti-dumping laws.The Designated Authority supports the duty, citing proper notice issuance and the need to meet statutory time limits. However, the Tribunal finds fault in the Authority's actions, noting the lack of a hearing for the appellant-Association before recommending the duty, thus protecting the sole producer's interest.The Tribunal criticizes the Authority for not granting a personal hearing to objecting parties, deeming the Final Findings and duty notification legally unsustainable. The Authority's failure to address the appellant-Association's objections and evidence adequately is highlighted, leading to the duty's annulment and remand for a fresh decision with a fair hearing within six months.Regarding the Interested party status, the Tribunal finds the appellant-Association's objections valid, supported by their registration certificate and substantial representation. The Supreme Court's decision cited by the domestic industry is deemed irrelevant to the case, with a passing reference supporting the appellants' position.In conclusion, the Tribunal allows the appeal, setting aside the impugned notifications and directing provisional assessment of future imports pending the remand proceedings. The decision emphasizes the importance of granting a fair hearing to all concerned parties in anti-dumping investigations to ensure legal compliance and protect the interests of all stakeholders.
TaxTMI 