Anti Dumping Duty
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 10 September 2010
This query is : Resolved
Dear All
1.
If the Antidumping duty is imposed of an product . Which is not manufacturing in india . How we can get the relief from the same .
2. High Court and Supreme court can put the stay on such type of decision . Or suggest how we can get the relief .
Awaiting your earliest reply .
Thanks & Regards
Ashish
Chanchal Nag Chowdhury
(Expert) 10 September 2010
There isn't much the courts can do in the matter as it is purely in the domain of the Govt. & cannot be interfered into by the courts. However, if the Govt. had earlier promoted the imports & later suddenly imposed the Antidumping duty, adversely affecting the importers, they may challenge the same by pleading Promissory Estoppel.
s.subramanian
(Expert) 10 September 2010
Yes. I agree with Mr.Chanchal.
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 10 September 2010
One important point that has to be noted in the query of Mr. Ashish is that according to him the product in question is not being manufactured within the country. It is against this background that his question needs to be answered.
Rule 5 of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment And Collection Of Antidumping Duty On Dumped Articles And For Determination Of Injury) Rules, 1995 provides as under:
5. Initiation of investigation. - (1) Except as provided in sub-rule (4), the designated authority shall initiate an investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping only upon receipt of a written application by or on behalf of the domestic industry.
When there is no manufacture within the country, firstly the question of existence of any domestic industry does not arise, secondly there can be no-injury being suffered by such a non-existent domestic industry, and finally, the possibility of the Authority receiving any written application on behalf of the domestic industry complaining about any dumping and consequent injury to it is totally out of question.
However, there is an exception to rule 5(1). Sub-Rule (4) provides as under:
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the designated authority may initiate an investigation suo moto if it is satisfied from the information received from the Commissioner of Customs appointed under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) or from any other source that sufficient evidence exists as to the existence of the circumstances referred to in clause (b) of sub-rule (3).
Sub-Rule (3)(b) provides as under:
(3) The designated authority shall not initiate an investigation pursuant to an application made under sub-rule (1) unless –
(a) ……..
(b) it examines the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application and satisfies itself that there is sufficient evidence regarding -
(i) dumping,
(ii) injury, where applicable; and
(iii) where applicable, a casual link between such dumped imports and the alleged injury, to justify the initiation of an investigation.
Even under sub-clause 3(b), the Authority has to first satisfy itself about dumping, injury and existence of casual link between dumping and alleged injury.
Thus, as discussed above, when there is no manufacture, there can be no domestic industry and consequently there can be no injury.
If these conditions are not satisfied, the question of imposition of anti dumping duty does not arise.
When the Authority initiates an investigation, it has to necessarily give a notice to the country from where the goods are being exported. If there is no domestic industry, naturally the exporting industry and also the exporting country would have agitated the issue. If there is no domestic industry in the country of importation, the exporting country would not have kept quiet.
However, since according to Mr. Ashish, Anti Dumping duty has been imposed even though there is no manufacture of the goods within the country, there seems to be some vital fact missing.
If Mr. Ashish could indicate the Anti dumping notification, the product and also the import from the country on which Anti dumping duty has been imposed, one can examine the issue thoroughly and comment.
In the absence of complete details, one will not be in a position to comment.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 14 September 2010
Sir,
Duty imposed vide notification no. 79/2010 customs dt. 30.07.2010 .
The authority is imposed the duty on gummed vinyle also which is covered under chapter 39 and the petioner include the such head in her petition .
It is sure that the petitioner is not manufactured the gummed vinyle .
And upto the time of notification issued there is not a SINGLE manufacturer in INdia .
Finally it should be made clear with the customs that only PVC Flex which is defined by the petitioner as two side PVC film laminated with polyester knitted fabric in between should only be covered under currently imposed provisional Anti Dumping Duty.
It must be mention there the GUMMED VINYL having Glue with paper liner. Which is also known as SAV (Self Adhesive Vinyl) having completely different manufacturing process, Machinery, & Raw Material also. Finally there is NO specific and dedicated manufacturer in India for such product.
Petioner doesn’t have the facility to manufacturer the GUMMED VINYL. , But we could not under stand why they like to impose the duty on such product.
Kindly suggest how we can get the relief .
Thanks & Regards
Ashish Maheshwari
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 14 September 2010
Dear Mr. Ashish,
Your contention that the product in question was not being manufactured in India is absolutely wrong.
The Director General Anti-Dumping initiated the investigation based on the complaint lodged by M/s. Pioneer Polyleathers Pvt. Ltd. According to the information provided in the application, the production of the M/s. Pioneer Polyleathers Pvt. Ltd constitutes 100% of the Indian production. Thus the applicant shall constitute “domestic industry” for the purpose of the present investigations.
This being the factual position, your contention that "upto the time of notification issued there is not a SINGLE manufacturer in INdia" is contrary to facts.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 15 September 2010
Sir,
"Up to the time of notification issued there is not a SINGLE manufacturer in india" means Petitioner and any other manufacturer of India not manufacturered the GUMMED VINYLE .
In my previous reply there is clearly mention there is completley differerent manufacturing process & Raw material of PVC Flex Film and Gummed Vinyle .
It is must be mention there petitioner files the manufacturing process flow chart it is for PVC flex film not For gummed vinyle .
So, sir there is NO contrary of facts .
Regards
Ashish Maheshwari
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 15 September 2010
Dear Mr. Ashish,
The Anti-dumping duty has been imposed only on PVC Flex Film. M/s. Pioneer Polyleathers Pvt. Ltd. are the manufacturers of this product in India. As regards the difference between Gummed Vinyl and PVC Flex Film, you have to agitate with the concerned authorities. But, be sure,vide the notification cited by you, anti-dumping duty has been imposed only on PVC Flex Film and not on Gummed Vinyl.
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist) 15 September 2010
sir,
They are also collect the duty on gummed vinyle just because of the petitioner include the itc-hs code 39199090 "Others" and the gummed vinyle also import in such head .
So, Sir kindly suggest how we can get the early relief from this .
Regards
Ashish maheshwari
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 15 September 2010
Dear Mr. Ashish,
As already indicated by me, the anti-dumping duty is being imposed vide the notification only on PVC Flex Film. The itc-HS code 39199090 - others, is only a reference point. It is not that all goods that fall under 39199090 would attract anti-dumping duty. Thus, gummed vinyle being different from PVC Flex Film will not attract anti-dumping duty. I am not sure whether you are contemplating import, or already imported, and whether the anti-dumping duty was actually imposed on such import or it is only your assumption that AD will be imposed.
In any case, you have to agitate the matter within time before the Authorities through proper support from a lawyer.
