9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned Final Findings 7/18/2018-DGAD dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Respondent No.2 and be pleased to grant consequential orders; and (b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Honourable Court be pleased to stay the execution and implementation of the Final Findings 7/18/2018-DGAD dated 01.04.2019 and further be pleased to direct the Designated Authority Respondent No.1 herein to extend the existing anti-dumping duties by a further period of 6 months pending the outcome of this petition; and (c) Be pleased to grant ad-interim relief in terms of para-(b) hereinabove; (d) Pass any such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case." Thus what is essentially under challenge is the final findings No.7/18/2018-DGAD dated 01.04.2019 passed by the respondent no.2 - Designated Authority on account of which the application of the petitioner under Rule 23 (1B) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 read with Section 9A(5) of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w investigation under Rule 23(1B) of the Rules and provided all necessary information and analysis and evidences / submissions to prove that the cessation of the existing anti-dumping duties would lead to the continuation of dumping and injury from the subject country through the application. 3.6 The respondent no.2 conducted an oral hearing on 15.05.2018 whereby the petitioner was asked to present its case and make its submissions. The petitioner appeared before the respondent no.2 and made its submissions with respect to its application for initiation of sunset review investigation. After two days of hearing, the respondent no.2 vide order dated 17.05.2018, rejected the application of the petitioner for initiation of sunset review investigation concerning imports of subject goods from the subject country. 3.7 Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the respondent no.2, petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.12368 2018 before this Court praying for a direction to the respondent no.2 to initiate the sunset review investigation. The said petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 by setting aside the impugned order dated 17.05.2018, as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record brief submissions, which verbatim reproduced as under: Brief Submissions on behalf of Petitioner Date Event 24.02.2006 The respondent no.2 vide the Initiation Notification No.14/14/2005/DGAD dated 24.02.2006 initiated anti-dumping investigation with respect to the Subject Goods. 23.08.2007 The respondent issued its final findings vide Notification No.14/14/2005-DGAD dated 23.08.2007 and recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty upon the import of the Subject Goods from the Subject Country. 14.09.2007 The respondent no.1 accepted the recommendations of the respondent no.2 and imposed definitive anti-dumping duty vide Custom Notification No.103/2007 dated 14.09.2007. 07.09.2012 The respondent vide Initiation Notification No.15/1006/2012-DGAD dated 07.09.2012 initiated the first sunset review investigation concerning imports of the Subject Goods from the Subject Country. 04.09.2013 The respondent no.2 vide its final findings no.15/1006/2012-DGAD dated 04.09.2013 recommended continuation of anti-dumping duty for a further period of 5 years. 10.10.2013 Respondent no.1 accepted the recommendation of Pag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/2018-Customs (ADD) dated 09.10.2018 extending duties by only 6 months viz. till 09.04.2019. 25.01.2019 The respondent no.2 conducted an oral hearing on 25.01.2019 whereby the petitioner was asked to present its case and make its submissions. 08/09.03.2019 The respondent no.2 visited the premises of the petitioner to conduct an on-the-spot verification of the documents and information submitted by the petitioner and issued its verification report. 19.03.2019 The respondent no.2 issued the disclosure statement in terms of Rule 16 of Anti-dumping Rules. 25.03.2019 The petitioner submitted its comments on the disclosure statement. 01.04.2019 The respondent no.2 in a perfunctory manner without even considering or addressing the submissions made by the petitioner, issued the Final Findings concluding that the continuation of the existing anti-dumping duties on the subject goods are not warranted. April 2019 Being aggrieved by the said Final Findings of the Respondent no.1, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application no.6896 of 2019. 05.04.2019 This Hon'ble Court was kind to grant an ex-parte order, directing further extension of the anti-dumping month. dutie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h power does exist, even then the same was required to be exercised before the expiry of the duty which as aforesaid was not possible in the facts of this case. ii. At the time of filing of the petition, the duties were due to expire within a week and therefore, intervention of the Court was needed to grant interim extension of the duties. However, since there is no ancillary power under Section 9C in the nature of powers under Article 226, the tribunal would not have been able to grant interim extension of the duties. In view thereof, the alternative remedy would not have been efficacious. Therefore, the judgment of Jindal Poly Films is not applicable in the facts of this case. iii. Since the duties were due to expire within a week of the issue of the impugned order by the Respondent no.2, the tribunal would not have been in a position to dispose of the matter within time. Therefore, no effective alternative remedy was available to the petitioner other than to file the present Special Civil Application. iv. Since there are issues involving breach of principles of natural justice and failure to follow procedural requirements by the respondent no.2, the Special Civil Applicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Clearly, the analysis of the respondent no.2 was based on negligible imports in the context of domestic market and that too of dissimilar product which amounts to no imports at all leading to the situation identical to one of 2013. 7. The petitioner submitted that there was stark contradiction between the conclusion reached by the respondent no.2 in the earlier sunset review investigation and the present sunset review investigation in completely identical circumstances. The petitioner provided a comparative chart comparing the conclusion and methodology of the respondent no.2 in earlier sunset review investigation and the present sunset review investigation. This comparison clearly go to show that the impugned conclusions arrived at by respondent no.2 are arbitrary. For else of reference, the same is attached again as Appendix-A. 8. The petitioner submitted that despite submission of data with respect to likely dumping margin, likely injury margin, likely price undercutting surplus capacities of Chinese producers etc., the respondent no.2 failed to appreciate the same and the impugned Final Findings does not even deal with the said submissions of the petitioner. To that extent, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that there was no injury being faced by the Domestic Industry. The petitioner submitted that the present case being one related to sunset review of the duties already in place, the absence of current injury becomes irrelevant. The whole argument of the respondent was based on the fact that there has been improvement in the economic parameters of the Domestic Industry. However, the same does not take into account the fact that in sunset review proceedings, likelihood of injury takes importance over current injury. Therefore, even in a situation where there is absence of current injury, the duties are required to be continued if there is a likelihood of injury in case of cessation of duties. 14. The petitioner has also substantiated that the findings are perverse in nature for aforesaid reasons and also would shock the conscience of the Court as reliance has been placed on the data which as per the Designated Authority himself did not relate to the subject goods. 15. The petitioner thoroughly and specifically pointed out all the legal errors in response to the disclosure statement. The disclosure statement is issued by the respondent no.2 in terms of Rule 16 and the same forms th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bnormal, which is established by the fact that the DI is selling the subject goods at approx. Rs.*** per MT only. It is noted that the import statistics of this item points to either misclassification of the import item or it not being the like article. However, the Authority has also calculated the export price based on the available import data. Export price has been adjusted for ocean freight, marine insurance, port expenses, commission, inland freight and indirect taxes (VAT) which may have been incurred by the exporter for exporting material to India, in order to put normal value and export price at the same leveled of trade. The export price to be determined is as Rs.*** per MT. Comments In the present case, the Authority despite nothing that the price of import is abnormal and the import statics of this item points to either misclassification of the import item or it not being the like article, went on to compute export price on the basis of such admittedly misclassified unlike articles and made the determination of dumping margin on the basis of such erroneous export price. Methodology for determination of likelihood of dumping and injury. 1st (earlier) Sunset review Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mal value, a significant portion of these exports are at dumped and injurious price. The Authority thus considers to take into account the average export price of dumped and injurious transactions from China to all countries (other than India). Present Sunset review Findings No such examination. Comments Likely export price from China has not been computed in the impugned Final Findings despite information the regarding the same submitted by the petitioner. Likely export price in the absence of imports 1st (earlier) Sunset review Findings 73. The Authority considers it appropriate to take into account the average export price of dumped and injuries transactions from China to all countries (other than India) based on the transaction-wise exports data submitted by the domestic industry from HS International Inc (impexp.com) - Sydney, Australia. The Authority has adopted this method because in the absence of actual exports to India, the Authority is determining the likely export price at which subject goods if diverted to India are likely to cause dumping and injury to the domestic industry. Present Sunset review Findings No such examination. Comments Likely export price f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject goods in India during the POI was 6,64,628 MT. This 23% of the total exports from China which are at dumped as well as injurious prices constitute 17% of the total demand in India. This 17% is substantial volume and assumes great significance considering the fact that there is huge capacity available in China; none of the major producers/exporters from China as well as importers in India have responded to the investigation and if the total demand in India is seen, there is every likelihood that if the anti-dumping duties are revoked, the percentage of dumped as well as injurious exports to India are likely to increase and take away major portion of the India demand. Further, even if the export behaviour and production capacity of the only responding interested party SGPL is seen, it is noted that as per the information available with the Authority, the known capacity of SGPL is 17,00,000 MT and the production during the POI is only 3,25,367 MT. This leaves surplus capacity of 13,74,633 MT with SGPL alone which is almost double the demand in India. This available surplus capacity can be utilised by SGPL for likely exports to India at the minimum dumped and injurious expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hina as well as importers in India have responded to the investigation, the Authority determines that if the existing duties are removed, there is every likelihood of the subject goods coming to India at dumped prices which are further likely to cause injury to the domestic industry. Present Sunset review Findings No such examination. Comments Despite similar facts and circumstances, a contradictory approach taken by the Authority in the impugned Final Findings. Likely price undercutting and price underselling 1st (earlier) Sunset review Findings 80. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided and submissions made by the interested parties and facts available before the Authority and on the basis of above analysis including analysis of likelihood of continuation of dumping and injury, the Authority determines that : (i) The constructed Normal Value and the likely net export price to India clearly indicate the likelihood of dumping from China PR if the existing duties are allowed to be revoked. (ii) The likely export prices from China PR clearly indicate the likelihood of injury to the Domestic Industry in the form of price undercutting as shown below. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents, which needs to be verbatim set out hereunder for ready reference: "BRIEF Written submissions on behalf of the respondents "1. The present petition is not maintainable and this Hon'ble Court may not entertain present petition as the petitioner has alternative and efficacious alternative remedy provided by statute of preferring an appeal before Division Bench of CISTAT as provided u/s.9(c) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. The petitioner has not stated in the petition as to how the petitioner is not left with any other option but to file present petition without availing alternative remedy as per section 9(c) of Customs Tariff Act. The petitioner has in para 36 of the petition on page No.45 only stated that SLP is adjourned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence the petitioner has preferred the present petition. However, pendency of SLP cannot be said to be a ground to bypass the alternative remedy as by way of SLP order passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dated 26/09/2018 and 08/10/2018 passed in SCA No.12368 were preferred. Whereas by way of present petition final findings dated 01.04.2019 is challenged which is altogether different cause of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken in case of OCTOCOMPU OYJ, (208 (362) ELT 994 (DEL)) that is distinction between lake of jurisdiction and alleged error in exercise of jurisdiction. It is not the case of the petitioner that the designated authority who has issued the final findings lakes the jurisdiction. But the case of the petitioner is that the final findings are erroneous and hence such facts cannot be examined under article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner has participated in the investigation and the contentions taken by the petitioner were not taken by the petitioner by way of objection during the investigation and hence after having participated in the investigation petitioner cannot take grievance about the procedure followed by the Designated Authority or about the data on the basis of which the investigation was carried out. 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that the final findings are perverse in nature or that it may shock the conscious of the Hon'ble Court which may call for the intervention by this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner has also not alleged any malafides against the designated authority and therefore, in absence of any such allegations the final find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... njury, Respondent no.2 arrived at the following findings. a. Present and continued imports During the P01, the import of the subject goods was a mere 73 MT. As per the domestic industry itself, in the post-POI period, there was no "likelihood" of importation of subject goods as no Chinese producer/exporter was understood to have participated in any contract for supply of the subject goods. Thus, there was no question of increase of imports, let alone significant increase in imports. b. Price suppression and price depression In light of the absence of imports, the respondent noted that there is no question of imports causing suppressing or depressing effect on domestic prices. c. Surplus capacities In relation to the surplus capacity and the likelihood of its diversion to India in case of revocation of duties, the mere existence of surplus capacity does not establish the likelihood of diversion of surplus production to India to prove the likelihood of imports if anti- dumping duties were to be revoked. 26. Respondent no.2 submits that at the time of rejection of the sunset review application before initiation, the respondent no.2 in its rejection decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ormance in the two injury periods. d. As can be seen from the date produced on page 368 of the Affidavit in Reply (internal page 26), in the previous sunset review, the domestic industry, was incurring losses, faced declining cash profits, low return on investment and had high levels of accumulated inventory. Contrary to the established growing profitability, stable case profits, and increasing return on investments. e. Thus, the repeated harping of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 came to different conclusions based on identical fact is contrary to the record of the two sunset review investigations. 7. The respondent has also relied upon the following judgments. 1. 2018(359) ELT 475(DEL) Kesoram Rayon Vs. Designated Authority. Para 71 to 89 are relied upon. 8. In view of whatever is stated hereinabove, this Hon'ble Court may dismiss the petition." 7. In support of aforesaid contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments: (i) In case of Jindal Poly Film Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, reported in 2018 (362) E.L.T. 994 (Del.). (ii) In case of Outokumpu Oyj. Vs. Union of India, reported in 2018 (36) E.L.T. 679 (Del.). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the application filed with the Authority. Briefly, we would like to submit as under: a. Domestic Industry has procured transaction-wise import data (attached as Annexure 2) indicating exporter-wise FOB export price of DI pipes from China to other parts of the world. b. In terms of Section 9A(5), the Domestic Industry has worked out the likely prices to India based on the FOB export prices of DI pipes from China to representative countries like Vietnam, Sri Lanka and Turkey. It is submitted that these countries are similar to India in their developmental efforts. It is also important to note that none of the selected countries has any domestic production of DI pipes and, therefore, the prices offered to these countries can reasonably be considered to be true and fair reflection of the likely prices to India. More so, the Authority may kindly appreciate that none of the Chinese producers/exporters or even the Government of China has bothered to contradict the detailed information and evidence provided by the Domestic Industry. This only proves that the information provided by the Domestic Industry is incontrovertible. c. In addition to the price comparison with the three repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent no. 2 to initiate the sunset review investigation and this Court vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 allowed the petition and directed the respondent no. 1 to initiate sunset review investigation. (xii) As the judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 passed in Special Civil Application No. 12368 of 2018 was not complied and the sunset review investigation was not initiated by respondent no. 2, the petitioner moved Misc. Civil Application No.1 of 2018 in Special Civil Application No. 12368 of 2018 and this Court vide order dated 08.10.2018 directed the respondent no. 2 and the Ministry of Finance to take follow up action. (xiii) Accordingly on 09.10.2018, the respondent no. 2 vide Notification dated 7/18/2018-DGAD initiated the second sunset review investigation. (xiv) The respondent no. 1 has also complied with such direction and issued Customs Notification No. 51/2018- Customs (ADD) dated 9.10.2018 extending duties by only 6 months viz till 09.04.2019. (xv) Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 conducted an oral hearing on 25.01.2019 and the petitioner was asked to present its case and make its submissions. (xvi) On 08/09.03.2019, the respondent no. 2 visited the premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... domestic industry with regard to the scope of the product under consideration (PUC) and the like article: (i) The product under consideration for the purpose of the present investigation is the same as in the earlier investigation i.e., Ductile Iron Spun Pipes. The present investigation being a sunset review, the scope of the product under consideration has to remain the same as that in the original investigation. (ii) There is no difference in subject goods produced by the domestic industry and the subject goods produced in and exported from China PR and they are like articles in terms of the Rule 2(b) of the Rules. (iii) There is no material difference in the production process employed by the Chinese producers and the Indian producers of the subject goods. Submission by other interested parties: 13. No submission was made by other interested parties with regard to the scope of product under consideration or like article. Examination by the Authority : 14. In the original investigation, the product under consideration was defined as under: "The product under consideration is Ductile Iron Spun Pipe as defined under clause 3.1 and 3.2 of International Standard, ISO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rse of trade). Principles of fair comparison as laid down under Article 2.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement are also relevant in this respect. 27. There was no submission from other interested parties in regard to normal value. .......31. As a part of the proceedings in this investigation, the Authority had sent questionnaires to the known exporters/producers from the subject country advising them to provide information in the form and manner prescribed. There has been no response to the questionnaire nor has there been any submission by the any of the Chinese producers/exporters. In the absence of cooperation from the Chinese exporters/producers, the Authority proposes to construct the normal value on the basis of facts available. 32. The constructed normal value so proposed to be determined is as Rs.***per MT (USD***per MT). Export Price and Dumping Margin Submissions made by the Domestic Industry Domestic Industry has submitted that based on the actual exports price of subject goods from China to Turkey, Vietnam and Sri Lanka in FOB price terms can be worked forwards to get the likely export price to India. Likely export price to India calculated by the domestic indust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into insignificance in case of a sunset review practically when there are no imports. (ii) Domestic Industry further submits that the mandate of the law for the Authority is only to carry out likelihood analysis as envisaged in Section 9A(5). Further, the Domestic Industry has been able to collect data of exports by the Chinese exporter to other countries during this period. There is sufficient indication that if the export price to other countries is taken as an estimate of the likely export price to India (once the anti-dumping duties are removed), it would be clear that the Chinese exports will injure the Domestic Industry. The price undercutting as well as price underselling analysis would reveal that if the duties are not extended, the injury to the domestic industry is imminent. Submissions made by other interested parties. 36. No other interested party has participated in the investigations and accordingly no submission been made by other interested parties. Examination by the Authority 37. The Authority notes that there have been miniscule imports of the subject goods during the injury investigation period. The Authority notes that I the absence of reasonable quan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Authority for reasons already explained above, the Authority has dealt with their submissions to the extent considered relevant. 69. In the present investigations, it is import- ant to note that none of the producers/exporters from the subject country, except SGPL, has filed the questionnaire response. Only SGPL, who is not a significant exporter from China even to other countries, has filed the partial response. However, since the company is not a significant exporter of the product under consideration and further since the Designated Authority is required to determine likelihood of dumping and injury considering the volume of exports which were at dumped price and volume of exports which were at injurious price, individual questionnaire response is of limited consequence to such an extent. The likelihood of dumping and injury is required to be determined on the basis of total exports from China to various countries globally. 70. Further, as per SGPL's own admission, they are not a major exporter of the subject goods. Therefore, the price data of SGPL cannot be considered as indicative of the likely behaviour of other major producers, let alone a conclusive factor. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price of dumped and injurious transactions from China to all countries (other than India) based on the transaction-wise exports data submitted by the domestic industry from HS International Inc (impexp.com) - Sydney - Australia. The Authority has adopted this method because in the absence of actual exports to India, the Authority is determining the likely export price at which subject goods if diverted to India are likely to cause dumping and injury to the domestic industry. 74. The likely ex-works export price of the ex- ports from China PR is determined by the Authority by making appropriate adjustments to the likely net export price on account of inland freight and insurance, commission, port expenses, bank charges and VAT adjustment. After making these adjustments, the likely adjusted ex-factory export price determined is as US$*** per MT. Likely Dumping Margin during POI US$ (per MT) Normal Value *** Net Export Price *** Likely Dumping Margin *** Likely Dumping Margin% *** Likely Dumping Margin% Range 0-10 78. On the basis of the information made available by the Domestic Industry from the websites of some producers/exporters as also other reliabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the domestic market in India, there is every likelihood that if the duties are revoked, the volume of dumped and injuries exports from China to India is likely to increase and likely to cause injury to the domestic industry." (xx) Being aggrieved by the said Final Findings of the respondent no. 1, the petitioner filed present Special Civil Application No. 6896 of 2019 and this Court vide order dated 05.04.2019 granted ex-parte order directing further extension of the anti-dumping duties by not less than one month. (xxi) Accordingly, the respondent no. 1 vide Notification dated 10.04.2019 extended the duties by only 1 months till 09.05.2019 and thereafter, vide order dated 03.05.2019, further extended the time by 45 days and the respondent no. 1 complied with such direction and issued Customs Notification No. 18/2019-Customs (ADD) on 23.06.2019 extending duties by 45 days till 23.06.2019. 9. The Court is called-upon to examine the rival contentions of the parties, which needs to be examined in light of the aforesaid indisputable aspects set-out hereinabove. The position of law in respect of the remedies on final findings is now clear. The decisions of Supreme Court in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder this Act as they apply to it in the discharge of its functions under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962). (5) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be heard by a Special Bench constituted by the President of the Appellate Tribunal for hearing such appeals and such Bench shall consist of the President and not less than two members and shall include one judicial member and one technical member. The counsel for the petitioner contended that sub-Section-3 of Section-9C of the Act does not provide any express authority and power or jurisdiction in the tribunal to issue direction to the Union of India for issuing notification extending the anti dumping duty. In other words, sub- Section-3 of Section-9C provides that the appellate tribunal may pass such orders as it thinks fit confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed as against in an eventuality like present where the challenge is to the final findings on sunset review which does not require any issuance of further notification, if the final findings are in negative then, the provision of Section-9C(3) does not envisaged any further positive direction to the Union of India or the Central Government for extending the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be said to be so efficacious as to dissuade this Court from entertaining the petition and relegating the parties to the appellate forum. 12. This brings the Court to consider the submissions on merits of the matter. It is required to be noted at this stage that the submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner which have been set-out herein above have hardly been refuted by the respondents. The respondents by and large have contended that the authority has observed principles of natural justice and afforded full opportunity for rendering final findings. As against this, the Court need to examine the contentions raised by the petitioner in respect of breach of principles of natural justice. The lack of opportunity for meeting with the case and the designated authority's omission in adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner and dealing with them. 13. The annexures to the submissions clearly indicate that how and in what manner the designated authority has jumped to the conclusion without the conclusion being supported by the material on record. The Court has already set-out herein above the relevant abstracts which speaks for itself which would rather clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is non- compliance with the principle of natural justice as no requisite information was made available and the conclusions are not supported by the material on record. Therefore, we are left with no other alternative, but to remand back the matter to the concerned authority after quashing and setting aside the same for reconsideration on the aspects which have been mentioned herein above and record its finding, as the extended period of notification of anti dumping duty is ending, the same is also required to be extended for appropriate time so that assessing the material and recording the final findings afresh could be undertaken meaningfully and without jeopardizing the parties right and contentions and rendering it infructuous. 16. In that view of the matter, the respondent no.2 is hereby directed to undertake the exercise of recording its final finding afresh in accordance with the observations made herein above strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule-23 of the Rules and after affording full opportunity to the parties and complying with the principles of natural justice and respondent no.1 shall appropriately issue notification extending the anti dumping duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
