KALYANI STEEL LTD. Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY/MINISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant domestic industry under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 challenging the Customs Notification No. 69/2005 -Cus.dated 19.7.2005 issued by respondent No. 1, Ministry of Finance withdrawing anti -dumping duties in terms of the recommendation of the respondent designated authority by its final findings dated 20.5.2005.

(2.) EARLIER , anti -dumping duties were imposed by notification dated 25.6.2001 on the basis of the final findings of the designated authority notified on 1.6.2001 on the imports of subject goods i.e. seamless grade alloys and non alloys, steel billets, bars and rounds originating in or exported from Russia and China. Following the request made by the importer M/s Maharashtra Ceramics Ltd. the designated authority initiated a mid term review investigation under Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -Dumping Duty) Rules, 1995, in order to determine whether the continued imposition of the duty was required to off set dumping, and whether injury was likely to continue or recur if the duty were removed or varied, or both.

(3.) THE designated authority followed the required procedure with regard to the investigation as contemplated by Rule 23 of the said rules. The investigation was carried for the period starting from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2003. However, injury examination was conducted for the years 2000, 2001 and 2002 and the period of investigation. No response to the initiation notification was received from any other exporter, importer or association, except M/s Kunal Corporation, Mumbai and M/s. Federation of Indian Industries, Steel Re -Rolling Mills Association of India and the applicant for the review. The non -confidential version of evidence presented by various interested parties was made available in the form of a public file kept open for inspection by the interested parties. The authority held a public hearing on 7.12.2004 when the parties attending public hearing were requested to file their written submissions of views expressed orally. The disclosure statement as contemplated by Rule 16 was made known to the interested parties on 10.5.2005 and the comments received were duly considered in the findings, as noted by the designated authority. The designated authority rejected the objection against the initiation of mid term review on the ground that there was positive information with the authority for deciding to initiate the mid -term review on the basis of such information. It was held that the production of evidence to substantiate the claims and counter claims by various parties was a matter of investigation during the course of review proceedings.