VINATI ORGANICS LTD Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS herein are the manufacturers of Iso -Butyl Benzene (hereinafter referred to as IBB) in India. IBB is used in the manufacture of drugs. On 30 -8 -1993, appellants collectively styled as "Isobutyl Benzene Manufacturers Association" applied for Antidumping investigation against imports of IBB from China. On 30 -8 -1994 a provisional Anti -dumping duty of Rs. 13,089 per tonne was recommended. On 27th July, 1995 a final Anti -dumping duty of Rs. 10,634 was recommended by the Designated Authority. Above recommendations, for provisional Antidumping duty and final Anti -dumping duty were duly notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce. On 1 -11 -1996, appellant No. 1 filed an application for a mid -term review on the ground that the Antidumping duty imposed was not sufficient enough to prevent injury to the domestic industry. Pursuant to that application the Designated Authority, after further investigation into the entire situation, recommended an enhanced duty of Rs. 12,465 PMT. The enhanced Anti -dumping duty was notified by the Central Government on 26 -6 -1998. Thus, the final Anti -dumping duty imposed on IBB as per recommendation dated 27 -7 -1995 stood replaced by final duty recommended on 27 -3 -1998.

(2.) CLAUSE (5) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, as amended by Act 6 of 1995 provides that Anti -dumping duty imposed shall "cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition unless revoked earlier". As the period of 5 years provided by this clause was about to expire, a sunset review was undertaken to see whether continued imposition of Anti -dumping duty is called for or not. On 30th July, 1999 appellant No. 2 filed an application for Sunset Review of Anti -dumping duty on IBB. In that application prayer was made for the extension of Anti -dumping duty for a further period of 5 years. The Designated Authority was asked to consider the injury as well as threat of injury to the domestic industry on account of the import of IBB. Designated Authority initiated a sunset review as per Notification dated 2 -9 -1999. The period of investigation was fixed as from 1st April 1998 to 31st March, 1999. Designated Authority sent questionnaires to known exporters/producers of IBB in China and to the Chinese Embassy in New Delhi. No Chinese producers/exporters cooperated in the enquiry. Indian Importers of IBB from China also took part in the enquiry. After enquiry the Designated Authority came to the conclusion that it is appropriate to discontinue Antidumping duty imposed on imports of IBB originated in or exported from China PR as per Notification dated 28th March, 2000. Pursuant to that recommendation of the Designated Authority, Government of India issued Notification dated 28 -5 -2000 withdrawing Anti -dumping duty on IBB imported from China. Appellants challenge the notification by which Anti -dumping duty has been withdrawn.

(3.) MAIN argument advanced by the Learned Counsel representing the appellant, the domestic industry, was that neither the Designated Authority nor the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce examined the possibility of recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry in case of withdrawal of the duty imposed as per earlier notification. According to the Learned Counsel while recommending Anti -dumping duty, the Designated Authority categorically found -