Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. ISMT Limited, a manufacturer of seamless tubes and pipes, filed an anti-dumping application before the Designated Authority alleging dumping of seamless tubes from China. The application was supported by Maharashtra Seamless Limited (MSL) and Jindal Saw Limited (JSL), who together represented 70% of Indian production. The Designated Authority initiated an investigation on 12 January 2010. During the investigation, MSL and JSL failed to provide requested costing and injury data despite multiple reminders. On 17 August 2010, the Authority called upon the petitioner to furnish certain information, noting that the supporting producers had not cooperated. Subsequently, the Authority terminated the investigation without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner challenged the termination order by way of a writ petition. The court held that the Designated Authority violated principles of natural justice by terminating the investigation without affording the petitioner a hearing. The court also noted that the petitioner prima facie satisfied the standing requirement under Rule 5, as it accounted for 27.09% of Indian production and was supported by producers representing 70% of production. The court quashed the termination order and directed the Designated Authority to proceed with the investigation from the stage prior to termination, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Termination of Investigation - The Designated Authority terminated the investigation without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, which violated principles of natural justice - Held that the authority must provide a hearing before taking adverse action (Paras 5-6). B) Customs Law - Anti-Dumping Duty - Termination of Investigation - Rule 17 of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and For Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - The Designated Authority terminated the investigation on the ground that the petitioner did not constitute 'domestic industry' due to non-cooperation by supporting producers - Held that the authority must consider all relevant material and cannot terminate without proper application of mind (Paras 3-4). C) Customs Law - Domestic Industry - Standing - Rule 5 of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and For Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - The petitioner accounted for 27.09% of Indian production and was supported by producers representing 70% of production - Held that the petitioner prima facie satisfied the standing requirement (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Designated Authority could terminate an anti-dumping investigation without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and whether the termination was valid in law.
Final Decision
The court quashed the termination order and directed the Designated Authority to proceed with the investigation from the stage prior to termination, after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- opportunity of hearing
- termination of investigation
- anti-dumping duty
- domestic industry
- standing
- Rule 17
- Rule 5
- Customs Tariff (Identification
- Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and For Determination of Injury) Rules
- 1995
