Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 729 - DELHI HIGH COURTLevy of anti dumping duty - dumping of Pentaerythritol - only point urged on the part of the petitioner was that the petitioner, being an interested party, was not given an opportunity of oral hearing prior to the issuance of the final findings by the designated authority - Held that:- it is clear that the definition of “interested party”, being an inclusive one, cannot be regarded as an exhaustive or as a “hard and fast” definition. The expression “interested party” as defined would therefore refer to its natural, ordinary and popular meaning as also to the particular entities which are stated to be included, namely, an exporter or a foreign producer or the importer of an article subject to investigation for being dumped in India, or a trader or business association a majority of the members of which are producers, exporters or importers of such an article; the government of the exporting country; and a producer of the like article in India or a trade and business association a majority of the members of which produce the like article in India. In its natural and ordinary sense “interested party” would have reference to a party who is interested in the investigation and the ultimate outcome of it. The petitioner was an importer of Penta from other countries such as Sweden and Germany during the period of investigation. But, in the post POI period, the petitioner had imports of Penta from Russia. In any event, the petitioner was a prospective importer of Penta from Russia. It was therefore vitally interested in the outcome of the investigation into the complaint regarding dumping of Penta from Russia. The result of the investigation would affect the petitioner, one way or the other. - it is evident that the petitioner would be an “interested party”. In fact, as pointed out by Mr Balbir Singh, even the DA considered the petitioner to be an “interested party” and treated it as such in the impugned Final Findings. We are also in agreement with the views of CESTAT in the Lubrizol case with regard to the meaning to be ascribed to the expression “interested party”. The CESTAT decisions cited by Mr Sethi are clearly distinguishable as in those cases the concerned party had not participated in the investigation conducted by the DA. - petitioner falls within the expression “interested party” as defined in Rule 2(c) of the said Rules. DA functions as a quasijudicial authority and decides a “lis” between persons supporting the levy of duty and those opposing the levy. Furthermore, the DA is bound to follow the principles of natural justice and to give an opportunity of hearing to all interested parties, in fact, “to all the parties, who have filed objections and adduced evidence”. The petitioner, being an interested party and at least a party who had filed objections and adduced evidence was required to be heard, particularly, when it repeatedly asked for a hearing. It is also clear from the Supreme Court decision that written arguments / submissions / comments are no substitute for an oral hearing. In the backdrop of the clear enunciation of law by the Supreme Court [2011 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it has to be held that it is mandatory for the DA to give an opportunity of oral hearing to an interested party. DA has violated the principles of natural justice in not giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. And, that is fatal. Consequently, the Final Findings, having been rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice, stand vitiated and cannot be sustained. As a result, the impugned Final Findings are quashed - Decided in favour of appellant.
|