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>High Court addresses challenge to Disclosure Statement by industries association, ensuring fair review of submissions in anti-dumping investigation.</h1> <h3>STAINLESS STEEL PIPES AND TUBES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION Versus DIRECTORATE GENERAL TRADE REMEDIES</h3> The High Court addressed the challenge to the Disclosure Statement by petitioners, an association of industries, regarding non-consideration of their ... Validity of Disclosure Statement - levy of ADD - Applicability of time period of one year contemplated in Rule 17 for the purpose of completion of investigation - HELD THAT:- It was stated by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that submissions already made to the authority will be re-submitted to the authority during the course of the day. The petitioners are permitted to re-submit to ensure that they reach the Designated Authority - The court does not express any opinion on the merits. Petition disposed off. Issues:Challenge to Disclosure Statement not considering Rejoinder, Consideration of representations by Designated Authority, Time period for completion of investigation.Analysis:The petitioners, an association of industries, challenged the Disclosure Statement issued by the Director General of Trade Remedies, alleging non-consideration of their Rejoinder. They contended that their objections to the imposition of anti-dumping duty were not addressed, despite submitting representations. The petitioners sought fresh consideration of their arguments and evidence. The time period for completing the investigation was set to expire. The Additional Solicitor General assured that the representations would be duly considered by the Designated Authority, citing a similar case before the Delhi High Court. Referring to the Delhi High Court's directions, it was indicated that the objections raised would be given due consideration. The petitioners were allowed to resubmit their submissions to ensure they reach the Designated Authority. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits and disposed of the petition based on the observations made.Conclusion:The High Court addressed the issues raised by the petitioners regarding the non-consideration of their representations in the anti-dumping investigation. The court ensured that the representations would be reviewed by the Designated Authority, following the assurance given by the Additional Solicitor General. The reference to a similar case before the Delhi High Court provided context for the consideration of objections raised by the petitioners. The court allowed the petitioners to resubmit their submissions to ensure proper review. The judgment highlighted the importance of fair consideration of objections in such investigations, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
