JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY/MINISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE mid term review Notification No. 15/16/2004 -DGAD dated 13.9.2005 with regard to imports of Cold rolled Flat Products of Stainless steel from European Union [EU], Japan, Canada and USA was issued by the Designated Authority (D.A.), Directorate General of And Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi was assailed by the appellant Domestic Industry (DI) before the Hon'ble High court of Delhi. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (in Writ Petition No. 21603/05 dated 18.11.2005). The Hon'ble High Court had disposed off the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before this Tribunal, holding that if a Notification is gazetted predicated on the impugned final findings in review between that date and the date on which the interim stay application of the petitioner was listed for hearing before this Tribunal, its operation shall be held in abeyance in that interregnum. Central Government in the meanwhile accepted the mid -term review findings of the D.A. and issued Notification No. 99/05 -Cus dated 25.11.2005. The present appeal in challenging inter -alia the withdrawal of Anti Dumping duties imposed earlier against EU and Canada and reduction of Anti Dumping duties against USA and Japan, on the following grounds:

(2.) IT was further pleaded that findings in relation to dumping, injury as well as causal link were in favour of the D.I. and yet duties were discontinued arbitrarily against EU and Canada on the ground that the injury margin from these territory/country was negative. It was also pleaded on behalf of the D.I. that injury margin was not a relevant factor under Section 9A(5) or under Rule 23. Further, it was argued that the entire calculation of injury margin was flawed in the absence of relevant information, which should have been supplied only by the exporter.

(3.) IT was further commented that D.A. was handicapped in arriving at the correct export price due to non -cooperation by the applicant - exporter as he had to consider only a selective information as made available in DGCI&S data. It was also submitted that these data contained material particulars which are not comparable with the grade/type of goods which was constitute the subject investigation.