2019 (6) TMI 864 - AT - Customs

Anti-Dumping duty - enhancement of Non Injurious Price determined in the sunset review - imports of Sodium Nitrite originating in or exported from China PR - Section 9A of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The anti-dumping duty on sodium nitrite was first imposed by a notification dated 19 December 2000 issued by the Ministry of Finance. The imposition of duty was reviewed from time to time and the second sunset review final finding recommending continued imposition of the anti-dumping duty on sodium nitrite was notified by a notification dated 17 August 2011. Before the expiry of period of five years for which the anti-dumping duty was continued, the Appellant moved an application for initiating another sunset review for extension of the anti-dumping duty on imports of sodium nitrite. Finding that there was sufficient evidence submitted by the Appellant to justify initiation of a sunset review investigation, the designated authority issued a public notice. The period of investigation for the purpose of review and investigation was April 2015 to March 2016.

A perusal of the section 9A of the Act indicates if any article is exported from any country to India at less than its normal value, then upon the importation of such article into India the Central Government can impose an anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping. Margin of dumping has been defined to mean the difference between the export price and the normal value. The export price means the price of the article exported from the exporting country. Normal value has been defined to mean the comparable prices for the like article when destined for consumption in the exporting country.

Determination of non-injurious price (NIP) - Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The principles of natural justice not only require the designated authority to grant an opportunity to the party to show cause but the order passed by the designated authority should also give reasons for arriving at conclusions and any violation of these two facets can vitiate the order. In the present case, neither was any information supplied to the Appellant in the disclosure statement nor do the final findings give any reason.

The final findings of the designated authority notified in the Government Gazette dated 19 July 2017 in regard to the determination of NIP, therefore, cannot be sustained and are set aside - matter is remitted to the designated authority to re-determine the NIP, keeping in mind the observations made in this Order.

Appeal allowed by way of remand.