Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1569 - HC - CustomsAnti-Dumping duty - import of Uncoated Copier Paper - data provided by the petitioner rejected by the Designated Authority while determining margin of dumping - Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - petitioner’s grievance is with respect to certain observations in the final disclosure statement, made under Rule 16 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty of AntiDumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. Held that:- The primary mandate is that the DA is to determine, firstly the margin of dumping and also deduce the export price from the available data. The petitioner’s objection to the impugned order is that the 40% of its production, imported into India through a Singapore trading entity (apparently funded by Chinese financers) are not related transactions. Its emphasis is upon its admitted capacity of production and the ex-factory price the facts relating to which, it says was, gathered by the Indian authorities upon inspection. The complaint of the Indian manufacturers, on the other hand is that in the absence of full details with respect to the sale price, ex-factory, at which the goods were sold to the Singapore trading concerns, and then imported into India, the entire picture would not be revealed. It is based largely on the latter argument that the DA appears to have concluded that the petitioner’s data cannot be analyzed, and taken into consideration for arriving at its export price and if at all the margin of dumping. Undoubtedly, this Court while exercising judicial review jurisdiction, in on-going quasi judicial or statutory proceedings, has to be nuanced and circumspect. It cannot, per se, express its opinion on the merits of the dispute. At the same time, the course of action advocated on behalf of the DA and the complainants cannot be entirely accepted. If the record discloses a basic flaw or irregular approach by the DA in the proceedings, the Court under Article 226 is not helpless. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s grievance can be best addressed by affording it an opportunity of making, what according to it, are relevant submissions, in writing to the Designated Authority with respect to the disclosure statement - The timeline which is indicated by this Court is tentative; in the event that the time to conclude the proceedings and render final findings is extended, under the proviso to Rule 17 of the Rules, it is open to the Designated Authority to extend the time suitably. Petition disposed off.
|