In terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 22, if a product is subject to anti-dumping duties, the Designated Authority shall carryout the periodical review for the purpose of determining individual margins of dumping for any exporters or producers in the exporter country in question, who have not exported the product to India during the period of investigation, provided that these exporters or producers show that they are not related to any of the exporters or producers in the exporting country, who are subject to the anti-dumping duties on the products. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 22 places an embargo on the Central Government not to levy anti-dumping duties under Sub-Section (1) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, during the period of review under Rule 22(1).
This review was initiated invoking the power under Rule 22 of the ADD Rules.
It is further submitted that in the absence of specific procedure prescribed elsewhere in the same statute has to be read into Rule 22 and by way of such interpretation Rule 23(3) read with Rule 17, is applicable to Rule 22 and the period to conclude the impugned investigation expired, after expiry of 12 months. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondents submitted that the limitation will not apply to a proceedings under Rule 23 and Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act does not speak of any limitation and in the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the final finding, which has been accepted by the Department and notification dated has been issued, over which if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can prefer an appeal. Further, it is submitted that merely because Rule 18 and other Rules have been referred to in the notification, dated , it cannot render the impugned notification as bad in law and mere quoting of the wrong provision, can at best be treated as a mistake and will not vitiate the notification.
Rajagopalan, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. The final findings are without jurisdiction, as the Designated Authority did not seek for any extension of time after the initial period of 12 months was over and in the absence of any order, the prescribed period cannot be extended by a statutory authority on its own or the first respondent.
The impugned notification dated , is a result of the review undertaken in terms of Rule 22.
It appears that this review being sought for by a producer in a foreign country, who has not exported his product into India, is referred to as a New Shipper Review, though such a term dose not find place in the ADD Rules. The petitioners contention is that Rule 23 provides for two types of reviews; one is popularly called as the mid-term review, which is done after a reasonable period of time has elapsed, since the imposition of the anti-dumping duty.