TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Neel Nikhar Advs. (M: 7011431001) Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. for Domestic Industry. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. M/s Engel Machinery Changzhou Co. Ltd. and M/s Engel Machinery (Shanghai) Co. Ltd. (hereinafter, 'Engel-1 and Engel-2') have challenged the impugned final findings dated 27th March, 2025 (hereinafter, 'the impugned final findings'), rendered by the Director General of Trade Remedies ('hereinafter, DGTR') in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of the product under consideration-plastic processing machines ('hereinafter, PUC') originating in or exported from China PR and Taiwan. 3. The case of the Petitioners is that the DGTR had initiated investigation co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., ought to be reconsidered and relooked at, as the submissions given by the Petitioners on 20th March, 2025 have not been considered by the DGTR. 9. It is his submission that the stand of the Petitioner is similar to the position taken by Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd [Related case - Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 3431/2025] wherein the said company has been given certain benefits and the authority has ultimately come to the conclusion after considering the relevant material that there is no duty that would be liable to be imposed upon the Petitioner as there is no dumping that is taking place. The findings in the case of Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel for the domestic industry is present, albeit with no instructions. 15. The grievance raised by Mr. Balbir Singh, ld. Sr. counsel is in effect, that the submissions made on 20th March, 2025 by way of an email written by ld. Counsel for the Petitioners ought to have been considered. The final findings qua Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd. and the Petitioners, are extracted below: "89. Husky Group has only submitted their response in PDF format. No Excel files have been provided for Appendix 1 to Appendix 10. 90. Post the issuance of the disclosure statement, Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd. from China had filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Delhi. The producer challenged the disclosure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....observed that the transactions reported in Appendix 3 A do not allow for the identification of the product exported by the producer. It could not be inferred if the product exported was product under consideration or non-product under consideration. Additionally, the producer failed to assign proper PCNs to these transactions. It was also seen that while the transactions were either at FOB or CIF level, information on expenses pertaining to domestic insurance, port and other related expenses was not provided. While the producer has provided delivery terms, it is seen that no adjustment of credit cost has been provided. The producer has also not provided backup documents for the adjustments claimed in the export price calculation. 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 17. The Court has heard the submissions made by the parties. The manner in which the scheme of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, (hereinafter 'ADD Rules') works is that once the final findings are rendered by the DGTR, a notification is to be issued by the Central Government, accepting the final findings. 18. Further, in terms of Rule 18 of the ADD Rules, the Central Government has to, within three months of the publication of the final findings, decide to impose ADD or take a decision otherwise. The relevant rule reads as under: "18. Levy of duty. (1) The Central Government may, within three months of the date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of India; (2009) 17 SCC 529 and Jindal Poly Film Ltd. v. Designated Authority, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11395 in this regard. 9. Heard. Even after considering Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran's submission, this Court is of the opinion that the present petition is premature. Irrespective of whether the Central Government accepts the recommendation for imposition of ADD or not, the said decision would be appealable either at the instance of the Petitioner or the domestic industry. Challenge being raised to Final Findings would clearly be pre-mature. 10. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of as being premature at this stage. The rights and remedies of both the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 are left open to be availed in ....