Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 370 - AT - CustomsAnti Dumping Duty - flexible slabs-stock Polyol (PUC) - export from Australia, EU, Singapore - violation of principles of natural justice - Held that: - It is a fact that at the time of making disclosure statement, the information available with the DA indicated SEPL and SETL would complete the value chain. However, the DI commenting on the disclosure statement contested the said position and submitted further facts for re- consideration. The said facts were examined on merit and accordingly the DA concluded that certain inferences made earlier require revision and modification. The same was then based on facts made available by the DI as an interested party. The final decision was with the DA on merits. He concluded that there was a gap in the value chain and accordingly, the EQRs filed by the appellants were rejected. We note that the contention of the appellants they should have been provided opportunity again before a final decision is taken, will lead to a situation of cyclical hearing and re-hearing by the DA. It is not anybody’s case that the final finding, as such, should be as per disclosure statement only. That will be against the concept of disclosing available facts and calling for comments. Here, it is to be noted that even if further opportunity is provided to rebut the statements of the DI after the final disclosure, the same will be contrary to time-limit of 40 days for filing EQR by the interested parties. It would appear that the appellants were having different related entities managing in different inter-connected operations. They should have been well aware of the implications of such inter-connection in the analysis of AD duty investigation. We also note that the original investigation in the present case was concluded in January, 2015 and AD duty was imposed in April, 2015. The appellants had provision of mid-term review in terms of Rule 23 of the AD Rules. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|