AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting in or exported from the People's Republic of China (PRC). During the tenure of the said levy, a New Shipper Review (NSR) under Rule 22 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and For Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules') was notified on 01.05.2003. The review was sought before respondent No.2, the Designated Authority (DA) by the six petitioners, who are producers, shippers and importers of Vitrified/Porcelain Tiles. Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 claimed that they had neither exported the said goods nor were they related to any of the exporters during the initial period of investigation, hence, they were eligible for an individual dumping margin under the aforesaid Rules. The anti-dumping duty continued vide Sunset Review (SSR) Notification dated 27.06.2008. The review application was filed on 19.04.2012 i.e. while the second SSR Notification was in existence. The NSR Investigation was initiated vide Notification dated 18.05.2012 for determination of the individual dumping margin for imposition of antidumping duties on the imports made by the petitioners No. 1 to 4. The per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Customs Notification dated 07.06.2016 imposed dumping duty on all imports of the subject goods produced by them. 9. Thereafter, six appeals were filed before the CESTAT by the petitioners contending that the DA had failed to verify the relevant details before confirming the levy of anti-dumping duty. The petitioners were informed of the final hearing of the case vide a notice dated 03.12.2016 wherein the case was listed two days later i.e. on 05.12.2016. The petitioners' counsel who was located in Chennai had requested for an adjournment through his colleague in Delhi, the request was acceded to subject to payment of costs of Rs. 1,000/- per petitioner and the case was adjourned to 12.01.2017. The petitioners further contend that on the said date of hearing, at the outset, the Departmental Representative had sought an adjournment on the ground that since the Registry had not served the relevant appeal files on them, they would not be in a position to effectively represent the Department. However, the adjournment was not granted, the petitioners' counsel was heard, the case was reserved for pronouncement of orders and the Departmental Representative was asked to file its written su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ill not be appropriate to clear the subject goods made by the applicants without payment of AD duty. 11. We also note that Rule 22 did not provide for any time schedule for completion of New Shipper Review. In the present case, though there is considerable delay in issuing the final findings, the backgrounds and circumstance for such delay has been explained by the DA. First of all, the appellant refused for on the spot verification. It was only after the issuance of First disclosure statement, they have consented for such verification. Later, change of DA necessitated a second oral hearing. The appellants did not participate in the first oral hearing. We note that the appellants did not diligently follow up their application for review. They did not appear for oral hearing when the case was posted and did not submit any brief in support of their case. It is only after the second oral hearing, further progress could be made in the investigation. Regarding the reasons for not finding merit in New Shipping Review by the DA, we have specifically examined the observations of DA in paras-25 to 27 of the final findings. We find that the appellants herein did not have supporting facts to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... terms of Rule 17(1) of the Rules, which reads as under:- "17. Final findings.- (1) The designated authority shall, within one year from the date of initiation of an investigation, determine as to whether or not the article under investigation is being dumped in India and submit to the Central Government its final finding - (a) as to, - (i) the export price, normal value and the margin of dumping of the said article; (ii) whether import of the said article into India, in the case of imports from specified countries, causes or threatens material injury to any industry established in India or materially retards the establishment of any industry in India; (iii) a casual link, where applicable, between the dumped imports and injury; (iv) whether a retrospective levy is called for and if so, the reasons therefor and date of commencement of such retrospective levy: Provided that the Central Government may, [in its discretion in special circumstances] extend further the aforesaid period of one year by six months: Provided further that in those cases where the designated authority has suspended the investigation on the acceptance of a price undertaking as provided in rule 15 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its final findings." 13. He further contends that the aforesaid Rule is unambiguous and clearly mandates that the DA has to issue the Final Findings within one year from the date of initiation of the investigation except that only in special circumstances, the said period of one year could be extended by another six months. He contends that the NSR was initiated on 18.05.2012 and the Final Findings, instead of being notified by 17.05.2013 or in the extended period of six months i.e. by 17.11.2013, were actually notified on 09.09.2016; more than four years had elapsed since the promulgation of the NSR Notification. Hence, both the Final Findings and the Customs Notification for levy of anti-dumping duty upon the petitioners were not sustainable in law. 14. The statutory provisions relating to de minimis anti-dumping margin or to insufficient evidence of injury to the domestic industry, are embodied in Rule 14 of the Rules. The procedure for calculating dumping margins etc. in NSR is stipulated in Rule 22. They read as under: "14. Termination of investigation.- The designated authority shall, by issue of a public notice, terminate an investigation immediately if - (a) it receiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Court being mindful of the fact that the CESTAT was set up as a judicial body for hearing the appeals i.e. to deal with an order impugned before it on merits after discussing the details of the case. It is supposed to return a finding on the issues framed or raised before it. The impugned order evidently is shorn of such details or the rationale for arriving at the conclusion it has. Mere reference to paragraphs numbers of the Final Findings ex facie does not satisfy the requirements of passing a reasoned order. 17. The impugned order has not examined either the specified procedure, the strict timelines or the matter or merits; especially the de minimis claim. Furthermore, when the DI's second SSR request was rejected by the DA and the subject goods were no more subject to anti-dumping duty, then what would be the effect of the NSR which was to be only for the remainder period of the five years of the 1st SSR anti-dumping duty levy? Could the NSR or its corollary provisional anti-dumping duty be sustained when the main anti-dumping duty itself was not payable after June, 2013? Furthermore, the written submission of the respondents could not have been taken into consideration....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her dec....