(1.) ON the petition filed by the Domestic Industry the Anti -dumping proceedings were initiated by the Designated Authority vide Notification No. 34/1/2001 dated 16th August, 2001. On the basis of preliminary findings dated 2 -11 -2001 by Notification No. -Customs dated 21 -12 -2001, anti -dumping duty in respect of the export of Compact Fluorescent Lamps imported into India from China PR and Hong Kong was imposed on provisional basis. Thereafter, taking into consideration the various submissions made by the interested parties, the designated authority issued a disclosure statement dated 28 -10 -2002 and, thereafter, notified the final findings on dated 14th November, 2002. On the basis of final findings, Government of India issued a Notification No. -Cus., dated 10 -12 -2002 imposing antidumping duty on Compact Fluorescent Lamps into India from China PR and Hong Kong.
(2.) THE present appellant challenged the notification imposing antidumping duty in respect of Compact Fluorescent Lamps imported into India from China PR and Hong Kong.
(3.) THE contention of the appellant in response to this preliminary objection is that the appellant filed written submissions on 10 -5 -2002 before the designated authority. Thereafter, appellant also submitted their objection to the disclosure statement vide letter dated 17 -5 -2002 and 5 -11 -2002. Their objection was duly noticed by the designated authority but were not considered by the designated authority in the final findings only on the ground that the Consultant who filed the submissions have not indicated which is the interested party/parties he is representing in response to the disclosure statement. The contention is that in the letter dated 5 -11 -2002, the appellant specifically mentioned that their contentions were not dealt in the disclosure statement and they reiterated their submissions. In this situation, the contention is that the findings where the Consultant has not indicated which is the interested party/parties he is representing in response to the disclosure, are not sustainable. The contention is that the appellant after the final findings vide letter dated 30 -11 -2002 specifically mentioned that the appellants are importers. Therefore, the Designated Authority cannot ignore their contention raised in respect of the imposition of duty in respect of articles in question. As the appellants participated in the proceedings before the designated authority and their contentions were also noted in the disclosure statement as well in the final finding, hence they were treated as interested parties by the designated authority.