2004 (7) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") in respect of Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric (NTCF) originating in or exported from Peoples' Republic of China. 3. The Authority issued a public notice dated 29.10.2003 initiating Anti-dumping investigations concerning the aforesaid commodity originating in or exported from China PR. The Authority forwarded the copy of the public notice to the known importers/exporters of NTCF and gave them an opportunity to make their views known in writing within forty days from the date of the letter. Information was also obtained from the authorities like the Central Board of Excise and Customs, DGCIS etc. The Authority also sent a questionnaire to elicit relevant information t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing addressed separately by the Authority, who may make known their views, within forty days of the despatch of this notification. Any other interested party may also make known its views within forty days from the date of publication of these findings; c. The Authority would provide opportunity to all interested parties for oral submissions. d. The Authority would disclose essential facts before announcing the final findings. 4. The aforesaid notification is challenged on the ground that the notification proceeds on certain incorrect factual aspects as recorded in paragraphs 22, 24 and 25 of the notification, more particularly, it is asserted that the Authority has referred to the web site of Kingrin Group Company which is a different g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that when the impugned notification dated 30.6.2004 specifically provides an opportunity to all interested parties to submit their views and the Authority has specifically mentioned that it would provide opportunity to all interested parties for oral submissions and that the Authority would disclose essential facts before announcing the final findings, there is no warrant for interfering with the impugned notification at this stage. What the petitioners are challenging in this petition are the preliminary findings given by the Designated Authority under Rule 12 of the Rules on the ground that certain factual inaccuracies have crept into the reasoning. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court would not entertain su....