Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 2000 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2000 (7) TMI 77 - SC - CustomsWhether an Investigating Authority has any discretion to reject the material produced by one of the party to the proceeding in regard to the alternatives enumerated in Section 9A(1)(c)(ii)(a) and (b) and prefer any other material to establish the normal value? Whether the material considered by the Authority for determining the normal value being material referable to an exporter from Germany, the same cannot be a comparable price for the purpose of determining the normal value of the respondents' catalysts which is exported from Denmark? Whether the Authority erred in fixing two different injury margins for the same catalyst base on different end-users of the said catalyst which, according to the respondent, is impermissible in law? Whether the Authority was statutorily bound to have completed its investigation within a period of one year form the date of initiation of such investigation? Held that:- From a careful reading of Section 9A of the Tariff Act and Rule 6 of the Rules, it is clear that the statute has nowhere put such a restriction on the Investigating Authority. On the contrary, a perusal of the said provisions clearly shows the 'normal value' will have to be determined with reference to comparable price, the word "comparable price" in the context can only be with reference to the price of similar articles sold under similar circumstances irrespective of the manufacturer. By holding anti-dumping duty to be exporter specific, the tribunal could not have restricted the scope of the investigation only to materials to be produced by a party against whom an investigation is being conducted. Such an interpretation of the statute is wholly contrary to the very scheme of the statute. Therefore, any argument which restricts the discretion of the Authority in the area of appreciation of evidence on the ground that the anti-dumping duty is manufacturer specific, will have to be rejected. The European Union is a "territory" for the purpose of Section 9A of the Act and the export price of like catalysts from Germany which is also a part of that territory viz., European Union would be a comparable price for the purpose of determining the normal value of the respondent's catalysts. The Authority while determining the margin of dumping has come to a definite conclusion that the argument of the exporter that its export price has been more or less the same irrespective of tariff had under which the catalyst was imported, was incorrect and the Authority has further found different dumping margins based on clearances under the two different tariff heads. Section 9A(1) contemplates levy of an anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping in relation to such article. If that be so then when the Authority on an investigation of facts comes to the conclusion that by virtue of two different customs duties there have been two different dumping margins in regard to the subject catalyst based on customs clearances, ipso facto, anti-dumping duty which is relatable cost of import also changes. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that there cannot be two anti-dumping duties in regard to the same catalyst, cannot be countenanced. In the instant case, the investigation was completed within the stipulated period after obtaining the necessary extension form the Central Government. The decisions relied upon by the respondent, in our opinion, have no bearing on the facts of this case since in those cases the proceedings were quasi-criminal in nature where application of principles of natural justice was inherent, unlike the present case where the application of principles of natural justice is limited to the provisions already made in the statute. Appeal allowed.
|