9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... panies. The Association represents users of organic chemical "coumarin" on which anti-dumping duty has been respectively recommended and imposed under the following notifications :- (1) Final Findings Notification No. 14/17/2009-DGAD, dated 7-7-2010 (2) MFDR Notification No. 82/2010-Customs, dated 20-8-2010. 2. It is submitted by the learned Consultant Shri Ravinder Jain that the appellant-Association challenges the imposition of anti-dumping duty on coumarin through this appeal on the following grounds :- (i) Imposition of such duty is detrimental to a large number of over 800 consumers in the tiny, small and medium sector. (ii) It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appearing for the domestic industry states that the appellant-Association has not demonstrated before the Designated Authority that it is an Interested party under the Rules. She also states that the Designated Authority had taken into account the Association's representation while giving his Final Findings and that the details furnished for the post investigation period could not have been taken into account by the Designated Authority. She justifies the levy on the ground that two domestic producers of coumarin have closed down on account dumping and if the anti-dumping duty is removed, the sole domestic manufacturer in business now would also close down. 5. She also cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this case, the date of initiation being 10-7-2009, the statutory time-limit could have been extended upto 9-1-2011 and the appellant-Association could have been easily granted a personal hearing before notifying the Final Findings. 9. We find that in para 16 of the Final Findings, the Designated Authority accepts that a representation from the appellant-Association was received, but has noted that no quantified information was provided by the Association and that details of price increase provided related to post period of investigation. When the Designated Authority had no input from any other consumer group and input from the appellant-Association claiming to represent over 300 consumers was not considered adequate; in our view it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any of her arguments. It is a decision rendered in appeals against orders of the MRTP Commission and deals with jurisdiction of that Commission. However, we note in passing the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case to the effect that import of material at prices lower than prevailing in India cannot per se be regarded as being prejudicial to the public interest, and that if the normal or export price of any goods outside India is lower than the selling price of an indigenously produced item then to say that the import is prejudicial to the public interest would not be correct (paragraph 54). This observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in fact supports the case of the appellants in this case. 13. In view of our find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
