Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Sunset Review in Puneet Resins Ltd. vs Designated Authority on 1 July, 2004Matching Fragments
3. By notification dated 1-10-2001, the Designated Authority initiated the sunset review investigation to review the need for continued imposition of the anti-dumping duty in respect of the NBR imported from Germany and Korea. By Notification No. 8/2002, dated 18-1-2002, the Central Government amended Notification No. 91/2001, dated 7-9-2001, extending the imposition of anti-dumping duty pending the sunset review findings till 30-7-2002. Thereafter, by Notification No. 71/2002, dated 22-7-2002, the Central Government further amended the Notification No. 91/2001, dated 7-9-2001 extending the imposition of anti-dumping duty till 30-9-2002. On 21-9-2002, the Designated Authority in terms of Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules submitted its final findings in respect of the sunset review and recommended an anti-dumping duty in respect of the NBR imported from Germany and Korea based on a variable duty methodology as the difference between the reference price and the landed value of the goods after taking into account the customs duty. In pursuance to the recommendations made by the Designated Authority, the Central Government by Notification No. 111/2002, dated 10-10-2002 imposed anti-dumping duty on the NBR originating in or exported from Korea and Germany and imported into India at the rate which is equivalent to the differential amount mentioned in column (4) of the table therein and the landed value of imports per metric ton for a further period of 5 years. The relevant portion of the impugned notification is reproduced below :-
(a) "landed value" means the assessable value as determined under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and includes all duties of customs except duties levied under Section 3, 3A, 8B, 9 and 9A of the said Customs Tariff Act."
4. M/s. Puneet Resins filed three appeals, Appeal No. C/596/2002-ADchallenges the initiation of sunset review. Appeal No. C/260/2002-AD challenges the sunset review and Notification No. 8/2002, dated 18-1-2002 vide which the period of imposition of anti-dumping duty was extended to 30-7-2002during pendency of sunset review and appeal No. C/687/2002-AD was filed challenging the Notification No. 111/2002, dated 10-10-2002 whereby anti-dumping duty was imposed in pursuance to the sunset review for further period of five years.
5. M/s. Apar Industries Limited (domestic industries) filed Appeal No.C/125/2003-AD with the prayer to re-determine the normal value, dumping margin and reference price.
6. M/s. Korea Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. filed Appeal No.C/14/2003-AD challenging the initiation of sunset review as well as Notification No. 111/2002, dated 10-10-2002.
7. The contention of M/s. Puneet Resins Limited who is importer of NBR is that initiation of sunset review by the Designated Authority is untenable and unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. The sunset review was initiated within 23 days of the publication of customs Notification No. 91/2001,dated 7-9-2001 based on earlier review regarding which the final finding was published by the Designating Authority on 20-7-2001. This sunset review was initiated contrary to the Trade Notice No. 1/99, dated 21-4-1999 issued by the Ministry of Commerce whereby it was clarified that application for interim re-view can be accepted provided at least one year has been passed from the order of imposition of anti-dumping duty by the Central Government. The contention is that the Designated Authority is bound by this trade notice. M/s. Puneet Resins also submitted that the Designated Authority erred in arriving at material injury to the domestic industry due to imports from subject countries during the period of investigation under review. The contention is that the anti-dumping duty measures were already in force on the subject countries and an anti-dumping duty is also being collected. Therefore, there could be no injury caused to the domestic industry "during the period of investigation. The contention is also that the levy of anti-dumping duty based on the variable duty method with-out qualifying it with a maximum cap equal to the amount of dumping margin determined is in violation of Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act.
18. The appellants also submitted that the initiation of sunset review is not sustainable in view of the Trade Notice issued by the Ministry of Commerce. We have perused the trade notice No. 1/99, dated 21-4-1999 which only prohibits an interim review within one year of the imposition of an anti-dumping duty. The present proceedings are in respect of sunset review which is necessary at the end of five years as an anti-dumping duty is levied only for five years. The Designated Authority has to review the need for continued imposition of the anti-dumping duty. The trade notice relied upon by the appellants does not cover the situation where sunset review is initiated.