Century Plyboards (I) LTD. And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the interest of justice would be met by directing the designated authority to give due consideration to the petitioner's representation dated 09.02.2022 and any supplementary representations. The Court emphasized that the designated authority should not pass a mechanical order but should consider each item raised in the representation, make a factual determination, and pass a reasoned order. The Court also suggested that contemporary data available with the GST department on the same transactions could be taken into consideration for a correct factual determination. The Court noted that Clause 4 of the disclosure statement supports considering all replies on merits. The Court did not express a view on the submission regarding the deadline for final determination (25.02.2022) but urged the authorities to proceed earnestly. The Court also stated that if necessary, respondent No. 3 (domestic industry) could be given an opportunity to substantiate their factual inputs. The Court agreed with the DGAD's counsel that factual and circumstantial inputs mentioned in the writ petition would be considered.

Facts

The petitioner, Century Plyboards (I) Ltd., an importer of Melamine, filed a writ petition challenging the disclosure statement dated 02.02.2022 issued by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) concerning anti-dumping duty on Melamine imports. The petitioner contended that the factual and circumstantial inputs used by the DGTR to determine the non-injurious price for the domestic industry (Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., respondent No. 3) were based on data from the Covid-19 pandemic period. The petitioner apprehended that using pandemic-era data, which might differ from normal periods, could lead to an incorrect determination of the non-injurious price and a consequential incorrect imposition of anti-dumping duty for five years. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 09.02.2022 to the DGTR regarding these concerns.

Key Issues

1. Whether the factual and circumstantial inputs pertaining to the Covid-19 pandemic period, which may be at variance with those of a normal period, can be the basis for determining the non-injurious price and imposing anti-dumping duty, thereby potentially leading to an incorrect imposition of duty? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Rules 5, 6, 8, and 17 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that using data from the Covid-19 pandemic period for determining the non-injurious price would be incorrect, as pandemic conditions differ from normal commercial periods. This could lead to an erroneous imposition of anti-dumping duty. They relied on their representation dated 09.02.2022 submitted to the DGTR. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents, including the Union of India and DGAD, did not explicitly record arguments against the petitioner's core contention regarding the pandemic data. However, the DGAD's counsel agreed that aspects of factual and circumstantial inputs mentioned in the writ petition would be considered by the designated authority. The judgment also refers to Clause 4 of the disclosure statement, which states that the Designated Authority would consider all replies given on merits to arrive at a final determination.