MERCK LTD. Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - importer has challenged the final findings dated 22nd December 2004 by the Designated Authority and the impugned notification issued on 21st March 2005 under Sub -section (1) read with Sub -section (5) of Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act imposing anti -dumping duty and has prayed for annulling the final findings and the notification imposing duties and seeking modification of the notification to the extent of products manufactured by the domestic industry.

(2.) ON 23rd December 2003, the designated authority initiated investigation on the basis of the petition filed by M/s. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Limited with regard to imposition of anti -dumping duty on the alleged dumping of 'Mica Pearl Pigment' originating in or exported from China PR, Japan, USA and EU. The designated authority notified the embassies and representatives of the subject countries and also forwarded a copy of the public notice of initiation to all known exporters and importers and industry/user associations. The authority also made available the public file to all interested parties containing non -confidential version of the evidence submitted by various interested parties for inspection upon request. A public hearing was held on 29th April 2004 and all the interested parties attending the public hearing were directed to file their comments and submissions expressed orally, in writing. The authority issued a disclosure of essential facts on 30th November 2004, as required under Rule 16 of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and collection of Anti -Dumping Duties on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The authority after considering all the evidence on record and submissions made, in final findings concluded that, 'Mica Pearl Pigment' were exported to India from USA and EU below its normal value resulting in dumping and that the domestic industry had suffered injury and that the injury had been caused cumulatively by the imports from subject countries. Preliminary objection of the Respondent:

(3.) THE respondent raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of this appeal filed by the importer. It was submitted by the advocate appearing for the respondent that the importer being only an "interested party" could in no way be affected by the findings of the authority. It was submitted that no known exporter affected by the final findings preferred an appeal and they have, therefore, accepted the findings. It was submitted that even if the appellant importer is a subsidiary of the exporter, that in itself did not grant any right to the importer to file an appeal against the final findings of the authority. It was further submitted that this tribunal in the case of AIIGMA, reported at has held that the importer cannot challenge findings on normal value and export price.