Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat PVT.LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the impugned Final Finding dated January 29, 2019, was not in strict accordance with Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The Court found non-advertence to the material placed on record and non-compliance with the principle of natural justice, as requisite information was not made available, and the conclusions were diametrically opposed to the material on record. The Court also noted the omission by the designated authority in disclosing material not claimed as confidential and the omission to follow the methodology, citing the Supreme Court decisions in Reliance Industries Ltd. and Union of India Vs. Meghmani Organics Ltd. as sufficient grounds for interference. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned Final Finding and remanded the matter back to the concerned authority for reconsideration. The Court also directed the relevant authority to extend the period of anti-dumping duty appropriately until fresh final findings are rendered, to avoid rendering the exercise infructuous.

Facts

The petitioner, Farmson Pharmaceuticals Gujarat Pvt. Ltd., challenged a Final Finding dated January 29, 2019, and a Disclosure Statement dated January 15, 2019, issued by the Designated Authority (Respondent No. 2) concerning anti-dumping duty (ADD) on Paracetamol originating from China PR. The petitioner argued that the Designated Authority failed to consider material placed on record and acted perversely. The Designated Authority had previously recommended the continuation of ADD on Paracetamol, which was then imposed by notifications. The petitioner contended that despite the imposition of ADD, dumping continued, leading to the current review. The respondents, including the Union of India, argued that the Union of India could not review its decision and extend a non-existent notification. They also contended that after the Disclosure Statement, nothing further was required before passing the final order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Final Finding dated January 29, 2019, issued by the Designated Authority is sustainable in law, considering alleged omissions in considering the petitioner's detailed submissions and non-compliance with principles of natural justice? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Rule 23 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 Designated Authority committed omissions by not considering the detailed submissions made by the petitioner. The conclusions in the final finding were diametrically opposed to the observations in the Disclosure Statement and the material on record, indicating a non-application of mind. The authority failed to disclose material not claimed as confidential and did not follow the prescribed methodology, rendering the findings perverse and unsustainable. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions in Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority and Union of India Vs. Meghmani Organics Ltd. Respondents' arguments: The Union of India cannot review its decision or extend a notification that is non-existent in law. Actions taken while the petition was pending were subject to the outcome of the petition. The submission that nothing further was required after the Disclosure Statement was devoid of merit, as parties are invited to submit further submissions before the Final Finding is arrived at.