TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated under the laws of Sweden. Prior to 1st July 2015, the Petitioner was operating under the name of "INEOS Sverige AB". The Petitioner produces PVC Suspension Resin and exports it to India. 3. The Petitioner participated in the investigation conducted by the DA into the dumping of PVC Suspension Resin. In the Final Findings dated 4th April, 2014 the DA recommended a duty of US Dollars 39.65/MT on the imports of PVC Suspension Resin manufactured by the Petitioner. Although in the petition there is a detailed discussion of the circumstances under which the Final findings came to be rendered by the DA, for the purposes of the present petition it is sufficient to note that during the pendency of the above investigation by the DA, on 16th September, 2013, INEOS AG and SOLVAY SA (a Belgium based entity) decided to acquire joint control of a newly established joint venture (JV), Inovyn, by way of a transfer of assets. 4. In compliance with Regulation 139/2004 of 20th January, 2004 (EC) on the control of concentrations between undertakings, the aforementioned parties, notified the European Commission of their proposal to establish a newly created joint venture to be named "the Inovyn J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case. Thereafter, the impugned letter dated 7th March, 2016 was sent by the DA to the Petitioner directing it to file a Mid-Term Review. The said letter reads as under: "Sir, With reference to the subject stated above, on preliminary scrutiny of the application, the following are observed: i. You are required to file an application or the Mid Term review in the prescribed format. ii. Also provide the supporting data/documents. 2. You are requested to provide the aforesaid information/data/documents within two weeks to enable the authority to process your application further." 8. In the above circumstances, the present petition has been filed. 9. Mr Akhil Sibal, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the DA failed to consider the application filed by the Petitioner together with the documents which amply demonstrated that there was only a change of name of the Petitioner, which did not require it to seek a Mid-Term Review. He submitted that even without examining the documents and forming any opinion regarding the impact of such change of name on the Final findings, the DA mechanically required the Petitioner to go in for a Mid-Term Review, which apart f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Dumping Duty on dumped articles and for Determination of injury) Rules 1995 (hereinafter the 'Rules') provide for a detailed procedure on various aspects of the determination of injury, rendering of the preliminary and Final Findings by the DA and for review. Rule 18 of the Rules provides that the Central Government may within three months from the date of the publication of the Final Findings by the DA under Rule 17 impose the anti-dumping duty. The amount of the duty has to be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry. 12. Rule 23 of the Rules talks of review of the need for the continued imposition of the anti-dumping duty and reads as under: "23. Review (1) The Designated Authority shall, from time to time, review the need for the continued imposition of the anti-dumping duty and shall, if it is satisfied on the basis of information received by it that there is no justification for the continued imposition of such duty recommend to the Central Government for its withdrawal. (2) Any review initiated under sub-rule (1) shall be concluded within a period not exceeding twelve months from the date of initiation of such review. (3) The provisions of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....continued imposition of anti-dumping Duty". When an entity mentioned in the Final Findings comes forward to say that there is a change in its name and not in its legal status, the question is whether the DA would be justified in such circumstances to require such entity to go in for a mid-term Review? 17. The only justification advanced before this Court by learned counsel for the DA is that there is no other procedure available for dealing with such a request. The Court is unable to appreciate the above approach of the DA. If one examines the format application for a mid-term Review, it requires the applicant to mention some changed circumstances which would justify such mid-term Review. While a change in the legal status of the domestic producer or exporter is one of the changes contemplated, a mere change in name is not. The Petitioner has repeatedly asserted that its legal status has not changed. All that has happened is a change in its name. There was no occasion, therefore, for the DA to presume that such a change of the name of the Petitioner as appearing in the Final Findings would somehow prejudice the other interested parties and that a mid-term Review has to be undertak....