LexRISHIROOP POLYMERS PVT. LTD. versus DESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B RISHIROOP POLYMERS PVT. LTD. v. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY MARCH 23, 2006 [ASHOK BHAN AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and/or Determination of Injury; Rules, 1995: C Rules 2(b), 3, 4 and 24-Anti-dumping duty--Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR}--·Import of--Designated Authority came to the conclusion that injury was suffered by the domestic industry because of the import of NBR- Anti-dumping duty imposed on the said NBR-In appeal, the Tribunal held that material injury to the domestic industry had been caused due to dumping D and there was a causal link between them-The Tribunal had converted the anti-dumping duty in [.~'\dollars on its own volition even though there was no prayer by the importer or a cross appeal/objection by any other party-- Correctness of--He/d: Tribunal erred in converting the anti-dumping duty in US Dollar. in the absence of any appeal or cross appeal-Tribunal's order set aside- -Anti-dumping duty in rupee terms restored- -Customs Tariff Act, 197 5, E Ss. 9-A and 9-B. Rule 23 and Annexure !l---Review- -Anti-dumping duty--lmposition a/- Designated Authority initiated suo moto ·"Mid term Review·' after the domestic industry withdrew its application-Designated Authority after taking into F consideration all relevant materials on record imposed anti-dumping duty for a period of five years--There was no material on record to show that there was a change in the parameters or the criteria relating to the injury which would warrant withdrawal of anti-dumping duty--Validity of-Held: Designated Authority has analyzed the issue of injury in detail in the ·"Mid Term Review'' findings and has considered all the criteria or parameters enumerated in G Annexure fl-All the relevant material facts had been taken into consideration by the Designated Authority while analyzing the injury caused to the domestic industry-- -Hence anti-dumping duty for the jive years rightly imposed. The appellant imported into India Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from Germany and Korea. The Designated Authority under Section H 252 - ·.__ RISHIROOP POLYMERS PVT.LTD."· DESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ADDI. SECTY 253 9 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 came to the conclusion that the injury A was suffered by the domestic industry because of the import of NBR to the country and imposed anti-dumping duty on the said NBR. In appeal, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that material injury to the domestic industry had been caused due to dumping and there was a causal link between them. The Designated Authority initiated suo moto"Mid Ter·m Review" under Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection. of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 after the domestic industry withdrew B its application. The Designated Authority after taking into consideration C all relevant materials on record imposed anti-dumping duty for a period of five years. In appeal, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that material injury to the domestic industry had been caused due to dumping and there was a causal link between them. The D Tribunal had converted the anti-dumping duty in US dollars on its own volition even though there was no prayer by the· appellant or a cross appeal/objection by any other party. Hence the appeal. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the Designated Authority failed to consider and record a fiading on each one of the 14 E parameters mentioned in Para (iv) of Annexure II to the Rules before imposition of anti-dumping duty. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: I. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate F Tribunal erred in converting the anti-dumping duty in US Dollar terms in the absence of any appeal or cross appeal by the respondent. The order passed by the Tribunal in converting the anti-dumping duty in US Dollar terms is set aside and the order of the designated authority in imposing the anti-dumping duty in rupee terms is restored. [268-D-E] G 2. It is found that the point regarding violation of the various parameters laid d~wn in Para(iv) of Annexure II to the Custom Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 had not be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.