Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

35. The respondent no.2 however submits that the facts and circumstances in the C/SCA/6896/2019 JUDGMENT subject sunset review investigation when compared to that in the previous sunset review investigation are not entirely similar. There are key difference between the facts and circumstances of the previous sunset review investigation and that of the impugned sunset review investigation as elaborated below:

a. Firstly, at the time of the previous sunset review investigation, anti-dumping duties against the subject imports were in force for five years. At the time of the impugned sunset review investigation, anti-dumping duty was in force for more than 10 years. This would have greatly reduced the proclivity for exporters from China PR to export the subject goods to India.
b. Secondly, in the previous sunset review investigation, the economic parameters of the domestic industry had not improved, were weak. However, in the current sunset review investigation, the economic performance of the domestic industry had improved.

(ix) On 15.05.2018, the respondent conducted an oral hearing, whereby, the petitioner was asked to present its case and make its submissions.

(x) The respondent no.1 vide its order dated 17.05.2018 rejected the application of the petitioner for initiation of sunset review investigation concerning imports of subject goods from subject country.

(xi) Being aggrieved by the decision of respondent no. 1, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 12368 of 2018 before this Court praying for a direction to the respondent 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.