Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Learned counsel argued that whenever sunset review is initiated, apart from the requirement of commencing it before the expiration of the original period, there is also an element of invariability in the imposition of the duty, which would be concededly valid for one year, pending such sunset review, under second proviso to Section 9A (5). It was argued that this is to be inferred from the fact that the initiation itself is a ground for extending the duty for such period, since the degree of injury prevailing is presumed to exist. This is because there is no requirement of any form of inquiry into the injury; the inquiry which is undertaken prior to the imposition of the duty through the first notification is deemed sufficient and the injury deemed to continue. However, if the sunset review inquiry is not closed by one year, the duty would lapse. As a result, argue counsel for the respondents, the notification of 23-01-2014 - which sought to amend the original notification- is valid, and cannot be set aside.

19. In this case, the facts indicate that the initiation or commencement of the sunset review is under dispute. The petitioner argues that Rule 6 mandates the publication - which in effect means the making available of the notification to the concerned party- of the decision to initiate the sunset review, before the expiry of the original period. Rule 6 (1) inter alia, requires that "The designated authority shall, after it has decided to initiate investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping of any article, issue a public notice notifying its decision..." Rule 6 (2) states that a copy of the public notice "shall be forwarded by the designated authority to the known exporters of the article alleged to have been dumped ..." Although Rule 6 applies for investigations when anti- dumping investigations are undertaken in the first instance, sub-Rule (3) of Rule 23 which deals with the procedure for sunset review states that:

21. If the court were to accept the petitioners' argument about the compelling nature of the requirement that for a sunset review to be valid, not only should it be shown to be initiated before the expiration of the period of the original notification, but also that the public notice in that regard should be shown to be issued and made available before the period, it would be doing violence to the statute. Apart from the W.P.(C) 1851/2014 & W.P.(C) 1866/2014 Page 23 consequence spelt out in second proviso to Section 9A (5), there is none other. The reference to Rule 6, mutatis mutandis in Rule 23 merely alerts the reviewing authority that it has to follow the procedure, and comply with natural justice. As long as it is shown that the initiation is done within the time, and public notice issued within proximate time, the sunset review is valid. There could be cases, where the initiation might be within time, but public notice is unreasonably delayed; in such instances, it could be argued that the inquiry is vitiated. In the present case, there is no dispute that the initiation took place on 22-12-2013; the notice was published in the Official Gazette on 31-12-2013 though it could be made available on 06-01-2014. Consequently the initiation of the sunset review was valid and proper. The petitioners' first challenge to the legality of the initiation therefore, fails.

W.P.(C) 1851/2014 & W.P.(C) 1866/2014 Page 26

23. The respondents' contention that continuing the anti-dumping duty during pendency of the sunset review is more or less automatic, is thus, belied by the terms of the Implementing Agreement, which was enacted in the second proviso. It consequently does not follow as a sequitur that whenever a sunset review is initiated under Section 9A (5), first proviso, the duty existing as on that date, would continue. This inference is obvious because, in the first instance, the original levy has a life of only five years. Thus, the legality of such levy is supported - by virtue of Section 9A (5) only for that duration. If the respondents wish to continue the levy for a period beyond that, during pendency of sunset review (which might not be concluded by the time the first period expires) they have to issue a notification, before the expiry of that period. It needs to be underlined here that but for the second proviso, there can be no legal extraction, during the sunset review, if the proceeding extends beyond the first five year period. In other words, the second proviso truly carves out an exception and makes the levy which otherwise would be invalid, on account of the operation of the main part, i.e. Section 9A (5), valid if its conditions are fulfilled.