Forum of Acrylic Fibre Manufactures (FAFM) vs Union Of India And Ors.

Forum of Acrylic Fibre Manufactures, the appellant has filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the failure of the Central Government to levy anti-dumping duty on the imports of "Acrylic Fibre", the subject goods originating in or exported from Belarus, European Union, Peru and Ukraine, the subject Countries, even though the designated authority, in its final findings notified on 01.09.2020, had recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty for a period of five years.

The relief claimed in this appeal is for issuance of a direction to the Central Government to issue a notification for imposition of anti-dumping duty, based on the recommendation made by the designated authority in the final findings dated 01.09.2020.

Shri Rakesh Kumar, learned authorised representative appearing for the Union of India has stated that the comments submitted by the Government of India in the appeal filed by M/s. Jubilant Ingrevia Limited vs. Union of India and five others, Anti-Dumping Appeal No. 50461 of 2021 decided on 27.10.2021, be read as comments in this appeal also. It is on the basis of the comments that the learned authorised representative stated that the recommendation made by the designated authority in the final findings notified on 01.09.2020 was not accepted by the Central Government.

Learned authorised representative has not placed any Office Memorandum, as in the other cases, conveying the decision of the Government of India not to accept the recommendation made by the designated authority and only reliance has been placed on the comments which state that the Government of India did not accept the recommendation made by the designated authority.

The issues raised in this appeal are issues which were considered by the Tribunal in Jubilant Ingrevia Limited. The decision taken by the Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty, despite a recommendation having been made by the designated authority for an imposition of anti-dumping duty, was set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was remitted to the Central Government to take a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the designated authority. The operative part of the order passed by the Tribunal in Jubilant Ingrevia Limited is reproduced below:

"46. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, it is not possible to sustain the decision taken by the Central Government, contained in the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2020, not to impose anti-dumping duty despite a recommendation having been made by the designated authority for imposition of anti-dumping duty. The matter would, therefore, have to be remitted to the Central Government to take a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the designated authority.

Though rule 18 provides that the Central Government has to take a decision within three months of the date of publication of final findings by the designated authority, but as the matter is being remitted to the Central Government for taking a fresh decision, this limitation would not apply, as was observed by the Tribunal in M/s S. I. Group India Private Limited vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Antidumping and Allied Duties, Anti-dumping Appeal No. 50430 of 2019 decided on 21.02.2020.

The Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2020 is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted to the Central Government to reconsider the recommendation made by the designated authority in the light of the observations made above. The appeal would, therefore, have to allowed and is allowed to the extent indicated above."

In the present case, as noticed above, the stand of the Central Government is also that it had decided not to accept the recommendation made by the designated authority.

Accordingly, the decision said to have been taken by the Central Government not to impose anti-dumping duty, despite a recommendation having been made by the designated authority for imposing of anti-dumping duty, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Central Government for taking a fresh decision on the recommendation made by the designated authority. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.

(Pronounced on 01.11.2021)