Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.9 The application had given enough material showing the likelihood of injury and therefore without even considering these facts the decision was rendered failing to appreciate that if the anti-dumping duty is lifted, the domestic market would be inundated and the market would cripple looking to the Chinese capacity as the % of sales of domestic industry which was projected at 477%.

5.10 Mr Joshi placed reliance on an interim order passed by this Court, by virtue of which, the Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India had powers to sit over the decision making process where an order of the designated authority declining the request for C/SCA/12368/2018 JUDGMENT initiating Sunset Review has been rejected. It is open for the court to issue directions for initiating Sunset Review and also issue interim directions for issuing a notification for extending and continuing anti-dumping duty. In the case on hand, Mr Joshi submitted that if such interim or final directions were not issued, the notification of anti-dumping duties would cease to be effective from 9/10/2018 and therefore the domestic market would be seriously affected, in the event of cessation of anti-dumping duty. Looking at the manner and the method in which the impugned order is made, this Court should exercise such powers and interim directions ought to be issued that the anti-dumping duty be extended and the Sunset Review be initiated, while quashing the order. That the perfunctory manner in which the decision is arrived is evident from the fact that on an additional application made on 14.05.2018, within three days a decision is taken on 17.05.2018 to refuse initiation of investigation on the application.

5.11 Mr. Joshi submitted that the petitioner, cannot approach the CESTAT, under Section 9C of the Act by way of appeal as such an appeal can only be filed against an order of determination or review thereof and not against an order refusing to exercise Sunset Review. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd versus Union Of India reported in 2000(118) ELT 305.

6. Mr. Nirzar Desai has appeared on behalf of the Union Of India. He has supported the order of the Designated Authority. It is his case that taking into consideration the C/SCA/12368/2018 JUDGMENT relevant factors under the Act and the Rules, the designated authority has come to a conclusion that no review is warranted. Once such a policy decision by a quasi judicial authority has been taken, this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought not to substitute its own views.

iii. No evidence has hitherto been given with regard to likelihood of price suppression/price depression caused by the imports of subject goods from China PR.

6. In view of the above, the Authority notes that the applicant has not been able to provide sufficient and satisfactory evidence in support of its prayer to initiate sunset review investigation. Therefore, the Authority decides that the case is not fit for initiation of sunset review investigation."

• Extensive material in terms of annexures was placed before the designated authority to make out a case for a C/SCA/12368/2018 JUDGMENT review and continuance of the anti-dumping duty, in accordance with the Rules, particularly Rules 6, 7, 10 &
11. That these Rules applied even in carrying out a review is clear from sub-rule(3) of Rule 23.

• The Order only records the submissions of the applicant without disclosing whether the data has been called for from exporting countries. A casual finding refusing to initiate sunset review investigation is recorded by stating that the applicant has failed to provide sufficient and satisfactory evidence in support of its prayer to initiate sunset review investigation. • The order therefore fails the test of having considered the application, as required under the mandate of the Section i.e. Section 9A(5) read with the Rules thereunder.