M-REAL CORPORATION Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the appeal has been preferred against the final finding to the extent that it has been held that imports had been made from the subject countries below their normal value. Admittedly, in the final findings no duty was recommended since it was held that the domestic industry had not suffered material injury or threat of material injury. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the finding that dumping was done by the appellant will affect the reputation of the appellant, the appellant is entitled to challenge such a finding. It is also apprehended that in some future proceedings this final finding may be relied upon.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the authority states on instruction, that the final finding as regards the dumping margin will have no bearing in any fresh proceedings that may take place in future and the apprehension of the appellant is misplaced.

(3.) IT appears to us that the final finding regarding dumping coupled with a finding that the domestic industry had not suffered material injury or threat of material injury made in these proceedings which led to non -imposition of any anti -dumping duty, will have no relevance in any future proceedings as apprehended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, because those proceedings, if at all undertaken under the provisions of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, will be in respect of a different period of investigation for which fresh determinations will have to be made, as per the rules. It would also appear that the appeal against an order of this nature would not lie. In this view of the matter, the learned Counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal stands disposed of as withdrawn.