TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (8) TMI 166
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs. 13,089 per tonne was recommended. On 27th July, 1995 a final Anti-dumping duty of Rs. 10,634 was recommended by the Designated Authority. Above recommendations, for provisional Anti-dumping duty and final Anti-dumping duty were duly notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce. On 1-11-1996, appellant No. 1 filed an application for a mid-term review on the ground that the Anti-dumping duty imposed was not sufficient enough to prevent injury to the domestic industry. Pursuant to that application the Designated Authority, after further investigation into the entire situation, recommended an enhanced duty of Rs. 12,465 PMT. The enhanced Anti-dumping duty was notified by the Central Government on 26-6-1998. Thus, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a PR as per Notification dated 28th March, 2000. Pursuant to that recommendation of the Designated Authority, Government of India issued Notification dated 28-5-2000 withdrawing Anti-dumping duty on IBB imported from China. Appellants challenge the notification by which Anti-dumping duty has been withdrawn. 3.Main argument advanced by the Learned Counsel representing the appellant, the domestic industry, was that neither the Designated Authority nor the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce examined the possibility of recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry in case of withdrawal of the duty imposed as per earlier notification. According to the Learned Counsel while recommending Anti-dumping duty, the Designated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that may be caused to the domestic industry in case the Anti-dumping duty which is in force is discontinued. On this basis, it was argued by the Learned Counsel that the Designated Authority did not comply with the Rules in conducting final investigation. Since possible threat to the domestic industry and resultant injury that may be caused to them on account of discontinuance of Anti-dumping duty, have not been adverted to according to the Learned Counsel, final finding arrived at by the Designated Authority and the notification that was issued by the Central Government pursuant to that final finding should be quashed. 4.As per decision of the Supreme Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.) app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red any injury during the present period of investigation. When Anti-dumping duty is discontinued, import of IBB from China PR is bound to be affected. As a result of that increase, will any threat of material injury to Indian industry recur? Such an examination was not undertaken by the Designated Authority. While issuing notification pursuant to the recommendation, Government of India in the Ministry of Finance also did not apply its mind to this aspect. 5.Clause (5) of Section 9A of the Act states that Anti-dumping duty imposed under this section shall cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition. This provision is subject to the proviso. The proviso read - "Provided that if the Central Government, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n found by the Designated Authority in the final finding on 28-3-2000. A situation that may arise on the discontinuance of Anti-dumping duty was not adverted to by the Designated Authority. 7.Relevant matters which were required to be gone into by the Designated Authority and the Central Government as per Rules were not adverted to or examined by them. A possible injury that may be caused or threat of injury in case of the discontinuance of the Anti-dumping duty was never considered by the Government of India or the Designated Authority. On this short ground the notification issued by the Central Government cannot be said to be one issued in conformity with the provisions contained in the Rules. 8.Learned Counsel representing the importer....