APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, THE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - Domestic industry has challenged the final findings dated 27th July 2004 and the impugned notification issued on 28th September 2004 under Section 9A(1) and (5) of the Customs Tariff Act imposing anti dumping duty on sunset review and has prayed for the modification of the notification dated 28th September 2004 on the ground that the said impost is inadequate.

(2.) DESIGNATED authority had initiated investigation against the imports of Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) from Japan, Korea RP and United States of America and imposed definitive anti dumping duty on the SBR originating in or exported from the above said three countries. The designated authority conducted a mid -term review in July 2001 and it was concluded that the definitive anti dumping duty should be continued on SBR. The designated authority suo -moto by the powers granted under Proviso to Sub -section (5) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act notified the initiation of Sunset Review on 30th July 2003 with regard to continuation of anti dumping duty on SBR originating in or exported from Japan, Korea RP and United States of America. The designated authority forwarded a copy of the public notice and questionnaire to all known exporters and industry associations, importers and consumers of SBR in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4). Public hearing was held on 7th June 2004 to enable the interested parties to submit their views orally on which day the authority made available the Public file containing the non -confidential version of the evidence submitted by various interested parties for inspection. After considering all the arguments raised by all and the evidence on record the authority concluded that there is dumping of SBR from the countries and the domestic industry may suffer if the definitive anti dumping duty is removed. The designated authority recommended anti dumping duty on the imports of SBR from the three countries. Preliminary objection to the appeal

(3.) LEARNED advocate appearing for one of the respondent raised a preliminary objection submitting that the Appeal has been filed by only one of the manufacturer and not the domestic industry as such. It was his submission that the appellant has no locus -standi, in as much, the petition for imposition of anti dumping duty was filed by the domestic industry and not by the appellant in his individual capacity. It was argued that in the absence of support of the other petitioner this appeal is liable to be dismissed. He relied upon the provisions of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act and submitted that right to appeal has been granted to "any person" and such person should have been necessarily a party before the original authority. He also relied upon Rule 2 of the CEGAT (countervailing Duty and Anti -dumping Duty) Procedure Rules, 1996 for the proposition that the domestic industry and interested party shall have the same meaning as ascribed to these expressions in Rule 2(b) and Rule 2(c) of Anti -dumping Rules. It was also submitted that Rule 5 of the said Rules also indicate who can be joined as respondent and a plain reading of the same will indicate that the appellant cannot file an appeal in an individual capacity.