2017 (1) TMI 1467 - HC - Customs

ADD - rejection of sunset review - case of petitioner is that rejecting the sunset Review is contrary to Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules and Section 9A(5) of the Act which casts a mandatory obligation on the authorities to conduct reviews - Held that - the petitioners have shown that there would be irretrievable injustice given the fact that without any order of initiation of anti-dumping review under Rule 23 through the SSR proceedings would be rendered impossible. Consequently an interim direction is issued to the respondents to in the course of the day initiate the SSR in the petitioners cases. The notification to be issued consequential to this direction as well as the orders shall carry a stipulation that the proceedings would be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petitions - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Refusal to undertake sunset review under Customs Tariff Act and Anti-Dumping Rules.

Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the respondents' refusal to conduct a sunset review under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act and Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules regarding Geogrid/Geostrips/Geostraps made of polyester or glass fibre. The Designated Authority imposed anti-dumping duty following investigations initiated in 2010. The petitioners argued that the refusal to conduct the sunset review was contrary to the Act and Rules, which mandate such reviews. They cited the judgment in Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. Designated Authority to support their claim that the review process is mandatory. The respondents contended that Rules 23(1A) and 23(1B) provide discretion to the Designated Authority to proceed with or refuse the review based on circumstances, with an obligation on the applicant to substantiate the need for duty.

The Court examined the domestic capacity, production, demand, and cost of production of the product in question. It noted a consistent domestic capacity, an increase in production, a slight decrease in production cost, and a significant increase in exports. The Court compared the selling prices of imported and domestic goods, highlighting the potential adverse impact on domestic producers due to lower prices of imported goods. Considering the circumstances and a previous order, the Court found that irretrievable injustice would occur without initiating the sunset review. As a result, the Court issued an interim direction for the respondents to initiate the sunset review in the petitioners' cases, subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions.

The Court also addressed the issue of imposing anti-dumping duty during the interim period, ensuring compliance with the law. The order directed the issuance of notifications and orders related to the sunset review, specifying that the proceedings would be subject to the final judgment. Finally, the Court ordered the distribution of a copy of the order to the parties for their reference.