Page 263 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] H.K. TRADE WIND TRADING LTD. v. DESIGNATED AUTH., DGAD & ALLIED DUTIES 245
ernment shall not levy anti-dumping duty under sub-section (1) of Section 9A of
the Act, on imports from such exporters or producers during the period of re-
view as referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 22. In this connection it has been sub-
mitted that all imports till the completion of review were subjected to provisional
assessment by Notification dated 25 June, 2018 issued by the Central Govern-
ment, but despite the issuance of the final findings on 2 May, 2019, the provi-
sional duty notification has not been superseded by issuance of any notification
by the Central Government directing imposition of anti-dumping duty, as rec-
ommended in paragraph 36 of the final findings of the Designated Authority.
Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that as the customs duty notification has
not been issued by the Central Government, there is no order in terms of Section
9C(1) of the Tariff Act and the appeal would not be maintainable in view of the
decision of the Supreme Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [2000
(118) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.)].
12. Learned Counsel for the Domestic Industry has also referred to a
matter relating to import of “jute products” and has submitted that even though
Designated Authority in the final findings had not made any recommendation
for according individual dumping margin to the exporters, but the Central Gov-
ernment had issued a notification for amending the earlier notification by substi-
tuting the Explanation and directing that the export of subject goods shall be fi-
nally assessed under the residual categories specified in the Table contained in
the Customs Notification.
13. Learned Counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the
appeal would be maintainable under sub-section (1) of Section 9C of the Tariff
Act as the Designated Authority has not made any recommendation for determi-
nation of individual dumping margin for the three appellants and in fact had
only recommended that the exports of the subject goods made by the appellants
from the date of initiation of new shipper review investigation may be subjected
to levy of anti-dumping duty as imposed earlier by Customs Notification dated
18 September, 2017 on the exports of the subject goods originating in or exported
from China PR. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal
would, therefore, be maintainable in view of the decision of Delhi High Court in
Jindal Poly Film Ltd.
14. To appreciate the submissions advanced by Learned Counsel for
the parties, it would be necessary to examine the Notification dated 18 Septem-
ber, 2017 that was issued by the Central Government imposing definitive anti-
dumping duty on the subject goods specified in the table and originating from
China PR. A perusal of the table shows that from serial nos. 1 to 8, names of spe-
cific producers/exporters with specific anti-dumping duty for each of the pro-
ducers/exporters has been mentioned. The anti-dumping duty for the residual
category has been mentioned from serial nos. 9 to 10. The appellants were not
exporting the subject goods to India during the period of investigation and,
therefore, were subjected to anti-dumping duty at the rate of US Dollar 452.33
per metric ton under the residual category. It is for this reason that the appellants
filed an application on 15 February, 2018 for initiation of New Shippers Review
of anti-dumping duty imposed on the subject goods originating in or exported
from China PR. The appellants claimed that individual dumping margin should
be determined for the applicants. The relevant portion of the application filed by
the applicant is as follows :

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  263