TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o India from China PR and Hong Kong was imposed on provisional basis. Thereafter, taking into consideration the various submissions made by the interested parties, the designated authority issued a disclosure statement dated 28-10-2002 and, thereafter, notified the final findings on dated 14th November, 2002. On the basis of final findings, Government of India issued a Notification No. 138/2002-Cus., dated 10-12-2002 imposing anti-dumping duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamps into India from China PR and Hong Kong. 2. The present appellant challenged the notification imposing anti dumping duty in respect of Compact Fluorescent Lamps imported into India from China PR and Hong Kong. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Domestic Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings only on the ground that the Consultant who filed the submissions have not indicated which is the interested party/parties he is representing in response to the disclosure statement. The contention is that in the letter dated 5-11-2002, the appellant specifically mentioned that their contentions were not dealt in the disclosure statement and they reiterated their submissions. In this situation, the contention is that the findings where the Consultant has not indicated which is the interested party/parties he is representing in response to the disclosure, are not sustainable. The contention is that the appellant after the final findings vide letter dated 30-11-2002 specifically mentioned that the appellants are importers. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es considered India as surrogate country for determination of normal value. The contention is also that the normal value in respect of the articles in question imported from the Hong Kong was also determined on the basis of normal value of such articles imported from China. The contention is that the articles in question are not manufactured in Hong Kong and from Hong Kong, the articles in question are only traded. Therefore, the normal value determined by designated authority in respect of articles in question imported from Hong Kong is also not sustainable. 6. In response to the contention of the appellant on merits, the contention of the domestic industry and designated authority is in the petition filed by the domestic industry, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceipt of a written application by or on behalf of the domestic industry. The application has to be supported by the evidence of dumping, injury, causal link between such dumped imports and alleged injury. Rule 6 of the Rules provides that designated authority shall, after it has decided to initiate investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping of any article, issue a public notice notifying its decision and such public notice shall, inter alia, contain adequate information in respect of name of the exporting country or countries and the articles involved, the date of initiation of the investigation, the basis on which dumping is alleged in the application, a summary of the factors on which the allegation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive their views within forty days from the date of publication of these findings. The appellants at this stage also had not taken any action to show his interest to join the investigation. Further, we find that as per record maintained by the designated authority in respect of the public hearing held on 11-4-2002, numerous representatives of interested parties attended the public hearing but none appeared on behalf of the appellant. The contention of the appellant is that vide letters dated 10-5-2002, 17-5-2002 and 5-11-2002, appellant raised certain objections before the designated authority which were mentioned in the disclosure statement as well as in the final findings. We have gone through the above-mentioned letters. In these letters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the public hearing was held on 11-4-2002 and the final findings were notified by the designated authority on 14-11-2002, hence, the letter written on 30-11-2002 was after the final findings. The appellant in response to specific query made by the Bench could not produce any evidence to show that they made any import prior to the period of investigation or during the period of investigation and even after the investigation of the articles in question. In these circumstances, as the appellant is neither importer nor producer of articles in question hence cannot be considered as interested party and had also not participated in the proceedings before the designated authority, hence the preliminary objection raised by the domestic industry ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
