9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... March 2016 issued by the Office of the Designated Authority ('DA') Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties (Respondent No.1) requiring the Petitioner to go in for a mid-term review pursuant to the Petitioner's application dated 18th December 2015 seeking amendments in the Final Findings dated 4th April 2014 of the DA in the anti-dumping investigation concerning import of PVC Suspension Resin from European Union ('EU') and Mexico. 3. The Petitioner, earlier known as Ineos Chlor Vinyls Ltd., is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom (U.K) and is a producer and exporter of PVC Suspension Resin. The Petitioner participated in the investigation undertaken by the DA. By the Final Findings dated 4th April 2014, the DA recommen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me. 7. It is stated that on account of the change in name, the Petitioner could not avail the benefit of the definite determination of anti dumping duty in its favour, by the Final Findings and the consequent notification, in respect of the PVC Suspension Resin produced by it. 8. The Petitioner along with Inovyn Sverige AB jointly filed an application before the DA on 18th December 2015 for change of their names in the Final Findings. The Petitioner states that with the said application it had placed on record before the DA all the materials to show that but for the change in the name, the operation of the Petitioner continued to remain the same. The above application jointly filed by the Petitioner with Inovyn Sverige AB was not consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, if a company is a party before a Court in a litigation and the name of the company has undergone a change in terms of the Companies Act then the Court would on an application by the party concerned permit the amendment to the memo of parties and to the cause title of the case. This is a routine exercise. After all the Court cannot examine if such a change in name is justified since that takes place with the approval of the Registrar of Companies. Likewise here the Swedish Companies Registration Office has recorded the change in the name of the Petitioner and has issued a certificate to that effect. This has happened subsequent to the Final Findings. This fact has to be taken note of by the DA and nothing more. The consequential change ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 7th March 2016 issued to the Petitioner gives no reason whatsoever for requiring the Petitioner to go in for a midterm Review. It is also silent on whether the application made by the Petitioner on 18th December 2015 with the enclosed documents was examined by the DA. Accordingly, the said decision as communicated by means of the impugned letter dated 7th March, 2016 of the DA is hereby set aside. 11. A direction is now issued to DA to examine the Petitioner's application dated 18th December 2015 and the enclosed documents and take a decision, in writing, after hearing the Petitioner, if considered necessary, within a period of four weeks from today. The said decision shall be communicated to the Petitioner forthwith. If aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
