TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 536
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....office at Haven 1992, Ketenislaan, 9130 Kallo, Belgium. The petitioner is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of Sulphenamides Accelerators, which constitute an essential input in the manufacture of rubber products. 3. It is the petitioner's case that the manufacture of the product under consideration is governed by the manufacturing standards, quality control protocols and commercial policies prescribed by its group company situated in Europe. Consequently, the product under consideration exported by the petitioner conforms to stringent European quality standards, resulting in a comparatively higher export price to India than the price at which the corresponding product is supplied by respondent No. 3. 4. Respondent No. 3 filed an application before respondent No. 2 under Rule 5 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 ("the Anti-Dumping Rules"), alleging that the product under consideration was being dumped into India. 5. It is the petitioner's grievance that, without undertaking the mandatory pre-initiation scrutiny contemplated under the Anti-Dumping....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or is uniformly determined for the domestic industry, a lower Landed Value must, as an inevitable mathematical consequence, result in a higher Injury Margin, whereas a higher Landed Value must necessarily result in a correspondingly lower Injury Margin. 10. Reference is made to the provision of Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short "the Act") read with Rule 17(1)(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, and it is submitted that the antidumping duty cannot exceed the margin of dumping and, in consonance with the lesser duty rule recognised under the Indian anti-dumping framework, the duty recommended is ordinarily restricted to the lower - (i) the dumping margin, and (ii) the injury margin. It is submitted that the impugned final findings are ex-facie contrary to the statutory framework governing anti-dumping investigations. Respondent No. 2 has failed to determine the export price in accordance with Section 9A of the Act read with Clause 5 of Annexure-I to the Anti-Dumping Rules, thereby vitiating the determination of the dumping margin and, consequently, the entire exercise culminating into the impugned final findings. 11. It was further submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 S.C.C. 771. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS : 15. Opposing the present petition and foregoing submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Soparkar appearing for respondent No. 3 and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Ankit Shah, at the outset, have submitted that the present petition may not be entertained in view of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner of filing an appeal under the provisions of Section 9C of the Act. In support of the submissions, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nitco Tiles Ltd. vs. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Manufacturer Association and Ors., (2005) 12 S.C.C. 454 and in the case of Designated Authority and others vs. SanDisk International Limited and Ors., (2018) 13 S.C.C. 402. They have also submitted that one of the parties i.e. Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association, has already approached the Customs, Excise and CESTAT Tribunal, New Delhi, challenging the impugned final findings and the Notification, and, thus, it is urged that any observations made by this Court in the present petition would have direct impact on the proceedi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Every application made before the Appellate Tribunal,- (a) in an appeal under sub-section (1), for grant of stay or for rectification of mistake or for any other purpose; or (b) for restoration of an appeal or an application, shall be accompanied by a fee of five hundred rupees.] (2) Every appeal under this section shall be filed within ninety days of the date of order under appeal: Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may entertain any appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (3) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against. (4) The provisions of sub-sections (1), (2), (5) and (6) of section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) shall apply to the Appellate Tribunal in the discharge of its functions under this Act as they apply to it in the discharge of its functions under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962). (5) Every appeal under sub-se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a uniform basis for the domestic enquiry, lower landed value must invariably result in a higher injury margin and conversely, a higher landed value must result in a lower injury margin. It is alleged that the valuation adopted by respondent No. 2 and the duty recommended in the statement of impugned findings are inconsistent since the country of lower value, landed value, has been recommended a lower duty, whereas a country with higher landed value has been recommended higher duty, when arithmetically it must have a lower injury margin. Thus, it is alleged that there is fundamental error, in the computation of landed value, or in the computation of NIP, or in the determination of injury margin, or in the application of lesser duty, which goes to the root of the determination. 24. Thus, the case of the petitioner is premised on the recommendation made in final findings, determined on an incorrect or faulty determination. 25. As far as the allegations about adopting an erroneous and a flawed methodology is concerned, this Court cannot venture into the determination or the valuation, adopted by respondent No. 2, in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of sulfenami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The normal value and export prices for the petitioner is also determined, as mentioned in paragraph No. 52 to 61. 29. In paragraph No. 63, the dumping margin has been determined, which has been doubted by the present petitioner. The designated authority while assessment of injury and causal link in paragraph 64 has recorded the submissions of interested parties, and has accordingly recorded its findings. The determination of dumping margin on the extensive scrutiny of data has been shared among the interested parties. The High Court in a writ petition, cannot venture into terra incognita by doubting the methodology/valuation, since the same falls within the domain of the designated authority who is an expert in the subject. The analysis or scrutiny on the confidential information is impermissible by the High Court, in wake of the fact interested parties have maintained the confidentiality. The aspect of the procedure adopted by respondent No. 2 and the magnitude of injury margin, as determined below paragraph No. 119 cannot be delved and examined by this Court, by High Court, while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the ....