9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing for the petitioners. 2. As, in this group of four petitions there is a common challenge to the Disclosure Statements dated 14.09.2016 under Rule 16 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti- Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for the sake of brevity), inviting the domestic industries to reflect upon and make their submissions on the mid-term review of dumping duty existing on the product called Soda Ash since 03.07.2012 and 18.04.2013, came to be imposed under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, hence, they were heard together and this order is passed after hearing the counsels on the aspects of challenge to the said Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioners' reflection and reply under the submission handicapped and this is said to be not a correct exercise providing sufficient opportunity to the interested parties to reflect upon the disclosure facts in terms of the Rules specially Rule 16 of the Rules. 5. The second limb of submission being canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is that the authority i.e. respondent no.2, not taking into consideration the factors which are relevant for forming even prima facie opinion qua reviewing of existing Anti-Dumping duty. 6. The counsels invited Court's attention to the paragraphs of the Disclosure Statements and contended that those paragraphs can well be said to be rather disclosure of the final conclusion leaving no further r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sly absent in its advertence, as could be seen from the Statements of Disclosure in question. 9. The counsels for the petitioners also are prima facie correct in submitting that the respondent no.2 could not have rendered its finding in the fact disclosure statement itself, as could be seen from paragraph nos.59, 60 and 61 at Page nos.316, 317. 10. The said findings do not indicate anywhere that it is merely a tentative or it is likely to be changed, as development of the facts and instances and the time limit given for filing submission would be indicative of the fact that there is substance in the submission of the counsels that there is a lack of time and material for effectively put forth the case of the petitioners before the authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , we are of the view that as there is still some time left for the authorities to record its final finding and as authority is under obligation to record its finding after following principles of natural justice, as could be seen from the decisions cited at the bar, which are set out as under; (i) in case of Meghani Organics Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in 2011 (267) E.L.T. 440 (Guj.). (ii) in case of Sandisk International Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, reported in 2015 (322) E.L.T. 846 (Del.). (iii) in case of Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce And Industry And Another Vs. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Limited, reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 510. The authorities be permitted to go on with the inquiry and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
