Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3 The challenge in this group of petitions is to order dated 22nd July 2017 whereunder responder no.2 - Designated Authority has given its final finding on Mid Term Review (MTR) recommending withdrawal of the Anti Dumping Duty against the product called 'Soda Ash' and the second order of even date on Sunset Review is annulled/rescinded with immediate effect, as a result whereof the petitioners have been compelled to approach this Court for seeking appropriate reliefs. The reliefs which are prayed for in Special Civil Application No.14204 of 2017 could be considered to be a common reliefs to the extent of final finding dated 27.07.2017 on Mid Term Review as in Special Civil Application No.14203 of 2017, 14205 of 2017, 14206 of 2017 and 14207 of 2017 wherein there was no Sunset Review. Reliefs prayed for in Special Civil Application No.14204 of 2017 reads as under:

DGAD dated 22.07.2017 and Order dated 22.07.2017 rescinding Sunset Review investigation, issued by the Respondent No.2 and annexed as Annexure I and J hereto; and C) Pending hearing and final outcome of this petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to by way of interim and/or interim relief direct the Respondent No.3 not to act in pursuance of Notification No.15/28/2014-DGAD dated 22.07.2017 and Order dated 22.07.2017 rescinding Sunset Review investigation, issued by the Respondent No.2; and D) Ex parte, Ad-interim and/or interim relief in terms of Paragraph no.21(B) and (C) be granted.

9 Thus, essentially, the time was granted to the authorities to complete the proceedings from the statement of disclosure and it was expected the purpose was only within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. As record indicates, the authorities received this order somewhere on 30th March 2017 and pursuant thereto the hearing was fixed on 25th April 2017. Ultimately, the said proceedings had not culminated into any order and the original notification dated 3rd July 2012 was coming to an end on account of lapse of time on 2nd June 2017. Hence, the concerned affected parties like the petitioners mopped the authorities for seeking appropriate review, which is known as Sunset Review for continuing the Anti Dumping Duty on account o reasons mentioned threunder, which request came to be accepted with effect from resultant order dated 16th June 2017 (page 313). The said order contains inter alia the following:

21 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. We are, prima facie, of the considered view that what has been canvassed on behalf of the petitioners has substance inasmuch as prima facie we are of the clear opinion that respondent no.2 could not have continued with Mid Term Review once the decision to undertake Sunset Review was declared and the machinery was set into motion pursuant to the order dated 16.6.2017. This order is made after the judgment of this Court was pronounced and received by the authorities I.e. on 23.02.2017 which was received on 30.03.2017 despite there being an order available with the authorities and despite there being a time limit existed in it and if the proceedings are not completed within the time limit then the authorities after having recording Sunset Review then a question arises as to how the authorities are justified in simultaneously proceeding with both the review. In our view, the same was not permissible and it deals a serious blow to its competence to HC-NIC Page 26 of 28 Created On Mon Aug 21 06:09:19 IST 2017 undertake and continue with Mid Term Review without there being any clear mandate from the court after the time granted by the Court had elapsed. Apart from that, we are also of the prima facie view that the concerned authorities could have approached the court which it did approach only on 7.7.2017 for seeking extension. The Court is therefore of the opinion that the matter deserves consideration.