Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.4 The Respondent No.2, vide Public Notice dated 25th February 2011 initiated Sunset Review Investigations by recording the following observations:

"In view of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High court in the matter of Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd V/s Designated Authority, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16893 of 2006 and in accordance with Section 9A(5) of the Act, read with Rule 23 of the AD Rules, the Authority hereby initiates a sunset review investigation to review the need for continued imposition of the duties in force in respect of the subject goods and to examine whether the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury."

3.5 The Petitioner alleges that based on specific language of Section 9A(5) of Act and Rule 23 of the Rules read with a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of RISHIROOP POLYMERS, it was under a bona fide impression that the object and purpose of sunset review proceedings were only to determine after examination of certain factors whether the period of imposition needed to be extended for a further duration of five years. According to the petitioner, it was also under the impression that the change in duties could only be sought through a midterm review and not in a sunset review under Section 9A (5) of the Act.

3.6 The petitioner contends that all the interested parties were specifically put to notice for sunset review proceedings under Section 9A (5) of the Act, the scope of which is limited by law only to "extend the period" of the anti-dumping duties already imposed. The issue of the notice dated 25th February 2011, according to the petitioner, never put any party to notice that the Designated Authority was proposing to change, vary or enhance the duty already imposed vide Notification No. 81/2009-Customs dated 13th July 2009.

3.7 It may be mentioned here that immediately thereafter, Rule 23 was amended vide Notification No. 15/2011-Customs (NT) dated 1st March 2011 providing for variation of duties in a midterm review in terms of Rule 23(1A). A provision for sunset review under Rule 23(1B) was also added to provide for the procedure for initiation of a sunset review. However, Rule 23(1B) did not provide for any variation of anti-dumping duty apparently in view of the fact that no such power had been envisaged under the provisions of the Act itself.