Gujarat High Court Orders Sunset Review in Anti-Dumping Case

The Court held that the Gujarat High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition due to the petitioner's manufacturing unit being located in Gujarat. It found the Designated Authority's refusal to initiate a sunset review under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act and Rule 23(1B) to be a misreading of the law. The Court criticized the Authority for not adequately considering the material evidence provided by the petitioner regarding dumping and potential injury. Consequently, the Court set aside the previous order and directed the Authority to conduct a sunset review and extend the anti-dumping duty as per legal requirements.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Compliance with Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act and Rule 23(1B) of the Rules
3. Examination of Material Evidence
4. Likelihood of Injury and Dumping Continuation
5. Procedural Lapses by Designated Authority

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The petitioner argued that the Gujarat High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the petitioner's manufacturing unit is located in Gujarat. The respondent contended that the petition should be filed in Delhi or Mumbai. The Court held that since the manufacturing operations and potential injury are related to the factory in Gujarat, the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court.

2. Compliance with Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act and Rule 23(1B) of the Rules:
The petitioner filed an application for the initiation of a sunset review under Section 9A(5) read with Rule 23(1B), arguing the need for continuation of anti-dumping duty. The Court noted that the Designated Authority must initiate a review if a substantiated application is received, to ascertain the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The Authority's refusal to initiate the review was deemed a misreading of the law.

3. Examination of Material Evidence:
The petitioner provided extensive evidence demonstrating continued dumping and potential injury, including surplus capacities in exporting countries, significant exports at dumped prices, and price attractiveness of the Indian market. The Court found that the Designated Authority failed to consider this material adequately, particularly the recent decline in import prices and the surplus capacities in exporting countries.

4. Likelihood of Injury and Dumping Continuation:
The Court highlighted that the Designated Authority's decision was based on the absence of current injury, which is not the correct test for a sunset review. The Authority should have assessed the likelihood of recurrence of injury if the duties were lifted. The Court found that the petitioner had provided sufficient prima facie evidence to justify the initiation of a sunset review.

5. Procedural Lapses by Designated Authority:
The Court observed that the Designated Authority did not follow the procedural requirements under the Rules, such as calling for information from exporters and conducting a thorough examination of the evidence. The Authority's conclusion that current imports were necessary to fulfill the demand and supply gap, and that there was no likelihood of injury, was found to be perfunctory and not based on a proper assessment of the material provided by the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 24.12.2018 and directed the Designated Authority to initiate a sunset review and extend the anti-dumping duty in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the need for a thorough and fair examination of the evidence provided by the petitioner and adherence to the procedural requirements under the Customs Tariff Act and the Rules.

---