Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Forum Of Acrylic Fibre Manufactures ... vs Designated Authority Directorate ... on 1 November, 2021
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH
ANTI DUMPING APPEAL No. 51050 OF 2021
(Arising out of Notification No. 36/2020-Customs (ADD) dated 11.11.2020 and Final
Findings No. 7/18/2019 DGTR dated 31.08.2020)
Forum of Acrylic Fibre ...Appellant
Manufactures (FAFM),
SF-9/10, Second Floor, Vasant Square Mall,
Community Centre, Pocket-V, Plot No.-A,
Sector-B, Vasant Kunj-New Delhi-110070
VERSUS
1. The Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
2. Designated Authority, Directorate
General of Trade Remedies Department
of Commerce & Industry
3. M/s Ganga Acrowools Ltd.
4. M/s Ganga Spinning and Weaving
Mills Ltd.
5. M/s Garg Acrylics Ltd.
6. M/s Lakshmi Spinners
7. M/s Longowalia Yarns Ltd.
8. M/s Luxmi Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.
9. M/s Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd.
10. M/s Paramount Syntex Pvt. Ltd.
11. M/s Ramji Acro Ltd.
12. M/s Sharman Woolen Mills Ltd.
13. M/s Shiv Woolen Mills
14. M/s Shiwalya Spinning and
Weaving Mills (P) Ltd.
2
AN/51050/2021
15. M/s Shree Ganesh Acro Yarns Pvt. Ltd.
16. M/s Sportking India Ltd.
17. M/s Udey Udyog
18. M/s Venus Texspin Ltd.
19. The Royal Thai Government
Republic of India
20. Ludhiana Spinners Association
21. Northern India Textile Mills' Association
22. M/s Indian Acrylics Limited
23. M/s Pasupati Acrylon Limited
24. M/s Vardhman Acrylic Limited
25. Tai Acrylic Fibre Co. Ltd., Thailand ...Respondent
APPEARANCE:
Shri Basava Prabhu Patil, Senior Advocate and Ms. Reena Khair, Shre Rajesh Sharma, and Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocates for the Appellant Shri Ratheesh M. Advocate for Respondent No. 3, 4, 9, 13, 20, 21 and 25 Shri Ameet Singh and Ms. Albeena Wali, Advocates for Designated Authority Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative of the Department CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S., MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) DATE OF HEARING: 21 October, 2021 DATE OF DECISION: 01 November, 2021 FINAL ORDER. 51916/2021 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:
Forum of Acrylic Fibre Manufactures1 has filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the failure of the Central Government to levy anti-
1. the appellant 3 AN/51050/2021 dumping duty on the imports of "Acrylic Fibre"2 originating in or exported from USA, Thailand3, even though the designated authority, in its final findings notified on 31.08.2020, had recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty for a period of five years.
2. The relief claimed in this appeal is for setting aside the Office Memorandum dated 11.11.2020 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) by which the Notification dated 01.06.2015 earlier issued imposing anti-dumping duty has been rescinded, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such rescission. A further relief that has been claimed is for issuance of a direction to the Central Government to issue a notification for imposition of anti-
dumping duty, based on the recommendation made by the designated authority in the final findings dated 31.08.2020.
3. It transpires from the records that earlier, by a notification dated 24.10.1997, the Central Government imposed anti-dumping duty on the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries. The imposition of anti-dumping duty was continued through sunset reviews and for the third sunset review, the Central Government issued a notification dated 01.06.2015 for continuation of anti-dumping duty on goods originating in or exported from the Thailand and Korea RP. Thereafter, a fourth sunset review was initiated for imposition of anti-dumping duty on the subject goods originating in or exported from Thailand. The designated authority, in its final findings notified on 31.08.2020, recommended for imposition of anti-dumping duty.
2. the subject goods
3. the subject Countries 4 AN/51050/2021
4. Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned authorised representative appearing for the Union of India has stated that the comments submitted by the Government of India in the appeal filed by M/s. Jubilant Ingrevia Limited vs. Union of India and five others4, be read as comments in this appeal also. It is on the basis of the comments that the learned authorised representative stated that the recommendation made by the designated authority in the final findings notified on 31.08.2020 was not accepted by the Central Government and thereafter the notification dated 11.11.2020 was issued rescinding the earlier notification dated 01.06.2015, by which anti-dumping duty was imposed, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such rescission.
5. Learned authorised representative has not placed any Office Memorandum, as in the other cases, conveying the decision of the Government of India not to accept the recommendation made by the designated authority and only reliance has been placed on the comments which state that the Government of India did not accept the recommendation made by the designated authority.
6. The issues raised in this appeal are issues which were considered by the Tribunal in Jubilant Ingrevia Limited. The decision taken by the Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty, despite a recommendation having been made by the designated authority for an imposition of anti-dumping duty, was set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was remitted to the Central Government to take a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the designated authority.
4. Anti-Dumping Appeal No. 50461 of 2021 decided on 27.10.2021 5 AN/51050/2021 The operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal in Jubilant Ingrevia Limited is reproduced below:
"46. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, it is not possible to sustain the decision taken by the Central Government, contained in the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2020, not to impose anti-dumping duty despite a recommendation having been made by the designated authority for imposition of anti- dumping duty. The matter would, therefore, have to be remitted to the Central Government to take a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the designated authority.
47. Though rule 18 provides that the Central Government has to take a decision within three months of the date of publication of final findings by the designated authority, but as the matter is being remitted to the Central Government for taking a fresh decision, this limitation would not apply, as was observed by the Tribunal in M/s S. I. Group India Private Limited vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of 5 Antidumping and Allied Duties .
48. The Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2020 is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted to the Central Government to reconsider the recommendation made by the designated authority in the light of the observations made above. The appeal would, therefore, have to allowed and is allowed to the extent indicated above."
7. In the present case, as noticed above, the stand of the Central Government is also that it had decided not to accept the recommendation made by the designated authority.
8. Accordingly, the decision said to have been taken by the Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty, despite a recommendation having been made by the designated authority for imposing of anti-dumping duty, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Central Government for taking a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the designated authority. The notification
5. Anti-dumping Appeal No. 50430 of 2019 decided on 21.02.2020 6 AN/51050/2021 dated 11.11.2020 issued by the Central Government shall abide by the decision to be now taken by the Central Government. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Pronounced on 01.11.2021) (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (MS. SULEKHA BEEVI C.S.) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (P.V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) JB