Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 633 - HC - CustomsImposition of ADD - Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Sheets and Coils (CRSS) - import from China, Korea, EU, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand and USA - anti circumvention investigation - Held that: - In the case of anti-circumvention proceedings u/s 9A (1A)-the procedure for which is prescribed in Rules 25-28 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, the object is entirely different. Section 9A (1A) contemplates enquiry into whether there is circumvention of anti-dumping duty imposed u/s 9A (1), either by alteration of the article’s description or its composition, or by its import “in an unassembled or disassembled form”. However, in the case of an anti-dumping investigation, the methodology adopted is geared to see if there is injury on account of the dumping practice. The nature of materials considered during those investigations focused on all those elements that make up the injury. However, in circumvention proceedings, the trajectory of the inquiry is altogether different. It is whether, given the existence of ADD (and the established existence of injury), there is any behavior – in the form of import of other products, which can be adapted or altered for use as the product or articles that are subject to ADD. Whilst the decisive nature of the observations of the DA in past instances is facially compelling for a court to hold that there should not be a fresh inquiry, yet one cannot be oblivious to the nuanced nature of the circumvention procedure. The power to resort to it should be based on objective material. In the present case, the information, which the respondents rely upon is the stagnancy in demand of the article which is subject to ADD, and the pattern of increase in import of CRSS that is wider than 1250 mm. The Petitioners” argument that the subject matter of the previous orders and observations are the same in circumvention proceedings, is unpersuasive to this court. A superficial analysis no doubt could lead one to conclude it to be so; however, for doing that, this court would have to assume that reduction of size from 1250 mm width to lower than that, is not a process of assembling or making of a new article. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|