2020 (7) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs: "a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ or order in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to consider the recommendations of the Respondent No. 3 issued Vide notification no. 6/11/2019­DGTR dated 4th March, 2020 and examine only relevant facts and past established precedence and issue a notification imposing anti-dumping duty on Nylon Multi Filament Yam originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP, Taiwan and Thailand and ignore the bias recommendation/request made by Respondent No. 2, Ministry of Textile based on incorrect and incomplete facts; b) In the alternative and with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s final findings. It is the case of the writ applicant that the Additional Secretary and designated authority has already recommended something which goes in favour of the writ applicants. 4. The conclusion drawn by the designated authority is as under: "CONCLUSION 128. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided and submissions made by the interested parties and facts available before the Authority as recorded the above findings and on the basis of the above analysis of dumping and consequent injury, the Authority concludes that: i. The product under consideration has been exported from the subject countries at dumped prices. ii.. The domestic industry has suffered material injury du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted from the subject countries." 6. Mr. Mihir Joshi, the learned senior counsel appearing for the writ applicants submitted that the respondent No.1 is now expected to act pursuant to the recommendations made by the respondent No.3 and issue an appropriate Notification imposing anti­dumping duty on the Nylon Multi­Filament Yarn originating in or exported from the countries referred to above. 7. Mr. Joshi would submit that the approach of the respondent No.2 i.e. the Ministry of Textile in this regard is bias as the same is based on incorrect and incomplete facts. Mr. Joshi would submit that the respondent No.1 may be directed to also provide an opportunity of hearing to the writ applicants before taking any final decision. ....
TaxTMI