Designated authority's anti-dumping determination defective for secrecy and arbitrariness; violated natural justice and ADR Rules 6(8), 7, 8, 16

The HC held the designated authority's anti-dumping determination defective: treating key figures (normal value, export price, margin of dumping, non-injurious price) as absolutely confidential and not disclosing them before hearing violated principles of natural justice and Rules 6(8), 7, 8 and 16 of the ADR Rules. The procedure was arbitrary and discriminatory for discarding interested parties' information without verifying accuracy. The court found the intervener could be treated as domestic industry only by a non-arbitrary exercise of discretion, noted problematic effects of fixing ADD in USD without addressing exchange-rate fluctuations, and held the writ petition maintainable despite an alternative appeal; the matter was sent back for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on Melamine: Legality and procedure of imposing ADD on melamine imported from various countries.
2. Confidentiality of Information: Whether the information provided by the domestic industry (GSFC) can be kept confidential.
3. Principles of Natural Justice: Whether the principles of natural justice were followed by the designated authority.
4. Procedure and Arbitrariness: Whether the procedure adopted by the designated authority was in conformity with the prescribed rules and whether it was arbitrary.
5. Definition of Domestic Industry: Whether GSFC can be considered a domestic industry despite importing melamine.
6. Evaluation in USD Terms: Impact of evaluating ADD in terms of USD at exchange rates prevailing in previous years.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on Melamine
The petitioners challenged the imposition of ADD on melamine imported from the European Union, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, and China. They argued that the designated authority did not follow the prescribed procedure under the Customs and Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA 1975) and the Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury Rules, 1995 (ADR 1995). The court examined whether the normal value, export price, and margin of dumping were correctly determined and whether the ADD was justified.

2. Confidentiality of Information
The court found that the designated authority treated the normal value, export price, margin of dumping, and non-injurious price as confidential based on information provided by GSFC. However, the court held that Rule 7 of ADR 1995 is not declaratory and requires the designated authority to be satisfied about the confidentiality of specific information. The court concluded that the confidentiality clause cannot be stretched to cover the essential facts under Rule 16, which must be disclosed to interested parties.

3. Principles of Natural Justice
The court held that the principles of natural justice were violated because the essential facts, including the normal value, export price, margin of dumping, and non-injurious price, were not disclosed to the petitioners before the opportunity of hearing was given. The court emphasized that an opportunity of hearing without informing the reasons for the decision is no hearing under the law.

4. Procedure and Arbitrariness
The court found that the designated authority did not make all possible efforts to determine the normal value, export price, and margin of dumping accurately. The authority discarded the information provided by the interested parties without proper consideration and relied solely on the information provided by GSFC. The court held that this procedure was discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Rules 6(8) and 8 of ADR 1995.

5. Definition of Domestic Industry
The court examined whether GSFC, which also imports melamine, can be considered a domestic industry. The court held that the definition of domestic industry under Rule 2(b) of ADR 1995 excludes producers who are also importers of the alleged dumped article. The court found that the designated authority's discretion to include GSFC as a domestic industry was exercised arbitrarily and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. Evaluation in USD Terms
The court expressed concern about the impact of evaluating ADD in terms of USD at exchange rates prevailing in previous years. The court noted that fluctuations in the exchange rate could create inconsistencies in the evaluation of the landed price of the imported article and the amount of ADD imposed. The court suggested that the designated authority take a closer look at this aspect to ensure consistency with Section 9A(1) of CTA 1975.

Conclusion:
The court directed the designated authority to review the imposition of ADD on melamine imported from China and follow the prescribed rules, including disclosing essential facts to interested parties. The court emphasized the need for a balanced approach that protects domestic industries without being arbitrary or discriminatory. The writ petition was found maintainable despite the availability of an appellate remedy under Section 9C of CTA 1975.

---