# THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ORS v. M/S. THE ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED

- **Citation:** [2020] 7 S.C.R. 1158
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2020-09-01
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3046-3048 of 2020
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran, S. Ravindra Bhat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/the-designated-authority-and-ors-v-m-s-the-andhra-petrochemicals-limited-34638
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of
Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Article and for Determination of
Injury) Rules, 1995 - 2(b) and 2(d) - Customs Tariff Act, 1975 -
s.9A - The Respondent asserted that there was dumping of Butanol
by Saudi Arabia and sought imposition of anti-dumping duty - The
Designated Authority (DA) in its findings did not consider it
appropriate to recommend levy of Anti-Dumping duty on the subject
goods from Saudi Arabia and terminated the investigation - Various
Writ Petitions were filed by respondent before the High Court from
time to time - Before the High Court, the respondent contended that
it was a producer of 2-EH which is a 'like article' to 2-PH and INA
and it satisfied the criteria u/r. 2(b) r/2. r. 2(d) of the Rules, 1995 to
file for imposition of anti-dumping duty - The first writ petition
filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court and directed
fresh evaluation - However, DA declined to initiate anti-dumping
investigation vide its order dated 05.03.2018 - In second writ
petition, by order dated 28.08.2018 the High Court set aside the
order dated 05.03.2018 and directed the DA to take steps for
initiating investigation to determine the anti-dumping in respect of
import of INA - Pursuant thereto, the DA issued notices and also
sought updated data from the respondent as its initial application
was in 2016 - Another writ petition was filed by the respondent
against the said order - In view of certain observations by the High
Court, the DA was constrained to issue notice of investigation and
it also enlarged the period of investigation - By order dated
22.07.2019, the High Court initiated suo motu contempt petition
proceedings against DA for disobedience of its order dated
28.08.2018 and also ordered the replacement of the incumbent DA
- According to the High Court, the action of DA seeking to enlarge
the period of investigation in the second remand order when it did
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 1158
1158
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
not find any such necessity in relation to the first remand order
clearly indicated its lack of bonafides - Before the Supreme Court,
it was contended that DA acted within the framework of the law
and the consideration of contemporaneous if not the latest data is
a pre-condition for launch of valid investigation by the DA - Held:
The DA, no doubt, follows a prescribed quasi-judicial procedure
where a determination on whether to impose or not to impose antidumping duty takes place - In the instant case, DA having regard
to Para 5.9 of the Manual of Operation for Trade Remedy
Investigations (Period of Investigation and Injury Investigation
period) required the respondent to furnish relatively contemporary
data - Such action cannot be termed as arbitrary - The impugned
orders were plainly erroneous in chastising the DA - Thus, the
impugned orders of the High Court dated 28.08.2018, 22.07.2019
and the order directing replacement of the incumbent DA are set
aside.
Judicial Review - Findings of Designated Authority - The
Constitution arms the High Courts and this court with powers under
Articles 226 and 32 - At the same time, barring exceptional features
necessitating intervention in an ongoing investigation triggered by
a complaint by the concerned domestic industry, judicial review
should not be exercised virtually as a continuous oversight of the
DA's functions - Supreme Court has cautioned more than once,
that judicial review is to be exercised in a circumspect manner,
especially where final findings are rendered by the DA - Antidumping.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and
the procedure prescribed by the Customs Tariff (Identification,
Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped
Article and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, clearly
disclose an intent that investigations should be completed within
pre-determined time limits and the levy itself (which can be
specific to foreign exporter o

## Text

_Characters 0–39,886 of 49,206. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39886 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1158
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ORS.
v.
M/S. THE ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No. 3046-3048 of 2020)
SEPTEMBER 01, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, VINEET SARAN AND
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of
Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Article and for Determination of
Injury) Rules, 1995 - 2(b) and 2(d) - Customs Tariff Act, 1975 -
s.9A - The Respondent asserted that there was dumping of Butanol
by Saudi Arabia and sought imposition of anti-dumping duty - The
Designated Authority (DA) in its findings did not consider it
appropriate to recommend levy of Anti-Dumping duty on the subject
goods from Saudi Arabia and terminated the investigation - Various
Writ Petitions were filed by respondent before the High Court from
time to time - Before the High Court, the respondent contended that
it was a producer of 2-EH which is a 'like article' to 2-PH and INA
and it satisfied the criteria u/r. 2(b) r/2. r. 2(d) of the Rules, 1995 to
file for imposition of anti-dumping duty - The first writ petition
filed by the respondent was allowed by the High Court and directed
fresh evaluation - However, DA declined to initiate anti-dumping
investigation vide its order dated 05.03.2018 - In second writ
petition, by order dated 28.08.2018 the High Court set aside the
order dated 05.03.2018 and directed the DA to take steps for
initiating investigation to determine the anti-dumping in respect of
import of INA - Pursuant thereto, the DA issued notices and also
sought updated data from the respondent as its initial application
was in 2016 - Another writ petition was filed by the respondent
against the said order - In view of certain observations by the High
Court, the DA was constrained to issue notice of investigation and
it also enlarged the period of investigation - By order dated
22.07.2019, the High Court initiated suo motu contempt petition
proceedings against DA for disobedience of its order dated
28.08.2018 and also ordered the replacement of the incumbent DA
- According to the High Court, the action of DA seeking to enlarge
the period of investigation in the second remand order when it did
[2020] 7 S.C.R. 1158
1158
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1159
not find any such necessity in relation to the first remand order
clearly indicated its lack of bonafides - Before the Supreme Court,
it was contended that DA acted within the framework of the law
and the consideration of contemporaneous if not the latest data is
a pre-condition for launch of valid investigation by the DA - Held:
The DA, no doubt, follows a prescribed quasi-judicial procedure
where a determination on whether to impose or not to impose antidumping duty takes place - In the instant case, DA having regard
to Para 5.9 of the Manual of Operation for Trade Remedy
Investigations (Period of Investigation and Injury Investigation
period) required the respondent to furnish relatively contemporary
data - Such action cannot be termed as arbitrary - The impugned
orders were plainly erroneous in chastising the DA - Thus, the
impugned orders of the High Court dated 28.08.2018, 22.07.2019
and the order directing replacement of the incumbent DA are set
aside.
Judicial Review - Findings of Designated Authority - The
Constitution arms the High Courts and this court with powers under
Articles 226 and 32 - At the same time, barring exceptional features
necessitating intervention in an ongoing investigation triggered by
a complaint by the concerned domestic industry, judicial review
should not be exercised virtually as a continuous oversight of the
DA's functions - Supreme Court has cautioned more than once,
that judicial review is to be exercised in a circumspect manner,
especially where final findings are rendered by the DA - Antidumping.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and
the procedure prescribed by the Customs Tariff (Identification,
Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped
Article and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, clearly
disclose an intent that investigations should be completed within
pre-determined time limits and the levy itself (which can be
specific to foreign exporter or country - or combination of
both-) cannot be more than five years - which may, after due
review in accordance with prescribed procedure, before expiry
of the said period, be extended by another period not more than
five years. These timelines are crucial; the DA is duty bound to
THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY & ORS. v. M/S. THE
ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1160
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
follow them. The analysis of the particular market behaviour by
the allegedly offending foreign Exporters, involves sifting of a
great deal of evidence, such as manufacturing capacity, financial
abilities, overall capacity of the country in the like field, prices,
and the margin of acceptable delinquent behaviour, as well as
domestic capacity, efficiency, etc, while determining if an injury
exists, the margin of such injury and its likely duration. The
judgment of this court in Union of India v. Kumho Petrochemicals
has noticed that as a signatory to GATT and the Marrakesh
Agreement, the Anti-Dumping Rules (ADA) are to be assimilated
into domestic laws. The provision of Article 5.10 of the Marrakesh
Agreement is strict with respect to the timeline for taking up
and conclusion of investigation. Article 10 empowers states to
levy duties, with retrospective effect, only for a limited period
(90 days subject to fulfilment of prescribed conditions) "prior to
the date of application of provisional measures, when the authorities
determine for the dumped product in question that:.." This has been
given effect to by Rules 17 and 20 of the Rules of 1995. [Para 29]
[1176-B-F]
2. Keeping the imperative of completion of investigation
within a pre-determined timeline, the guidelines contained in the
Manual of Operation for Trade Remedy Investigations (Period of
Investigation and Injury Investigation period) as to the
contemporaneousness of the data necessary to carry out the
investigation, assume importance. [Para 30][1177-A]
3. The rationale for these guidelines is self-evident: any
investigation carried out for past periods would in all likelihood,
result in minimal levy. For instance, if in 2020, investigation is
initiated for the period 2013-14, with the object of determining
anti-dumping, even if injurious behavior is found, the levy can be
only of limited duration. Further, to levy duty for the period after
findings are rendered, the POI would yield stale results, and
cannot justify levy for later periods. Keeping this in mind, the
DA, apparently in the present case, having regard to Para 5.9
required respondent to furnish relatively contemporary data. Such
an action cannot be termed as arbitrary. In this court's opinion,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1161
the impugned orders were plainly erroneous in chastising the
DA, and even directing his replacement, for what appears to be
his adherence to prescribed procedure. [Para 31][1177-E-G]
4. Access to judicial review is a valuable right conferred
upon citizens and persons aggrieved; the Constitution arms the
High Courts and this court with powers under Articles 226 and
32. At the same time, barring exceptional features necessitating
intervention in an ongoing investigation triggered by a complaint
by the concerned domestic industry, judicial review should not
be exercised virtually as a continuous oversight of the DA's
functions. This court has cautioned more than once, that judicial
review is to be exercised in a circumspect manner, especially
where final findings are rendered by the DA. [Para 32]
[1178-A-B]
S&S Enterprise v. Designated Authority (2005) 3 SCC
337 : [2005] 2 SCR 255; Reliance Industries Ltd. v.
Designated Authority (2006) 10 SCC 368 : [2006] 6
Suppl. SCR 1; Directorate General of Anti-Dumping v.
Sandik International (2018) 13 SCC 402; Association
of Synthetic Fibre Industries v. Apollo Tyres Ltd (2010)
13 SCC 733 - relied on.
Tata Chemicals
v.
Union of India, (2008) 17 SCC
180 : [2008] 5 SCR 320; Automotive Tyre Manufacturers
Association v. The Designated Authority (2011) 2 SCC
258 : [2011] 1 SCR 198; Union of India v. Kumho
Petrochemicals (2017) 8 SCC 307 : [2017] 4 SCR 324;
Ref Commr. of Customs v. G.M. Exports, (2016) 1 SCC
91 : [2015] 14 SCR 848 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2005] 2 SCR 255
relied on
Para 25
[2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 1
relied on
Para 26
[2008] 5 SCR 320
referred to
Para 27
[2011] 1 SCR 198
referred to
Para 27
[2017] 4 SCR 324
referred to
Para 29
THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY & ORS. v. M/S. THE
ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
[2015] 14 SCR 848
referred to
Para 29
(2018) 13 SCC 402
relied on
Para 32
(2010) 13 SCC 733
relied on
Para 32
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
3046-3048 of 2020.
From the Judgment and Orders dated 28.08.2018, 05.08.2019 and
22.07.2019 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
in W.P. No. 11116 of 2018 and in W.P. No. 2639 of 2019 respectively.
K. K. Venugopal, Attorney General, Sanjay Jain, ASG, Mukul
Rohtagi, Sr. Adv., D. L. Chidananda, Chinmayee Chandra, Ankur Talwar,
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, S. Das, Y. Vismai Rao, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
1. Leave granted. With consent, the appeals were heard finally.
The present appeals by special leave impugns three orders of the
Telangana High Court, dated 28.08.2018, 22.07.2019 and 05.08.2019
respectively. These were in the context of the respondent/writ petitioners'
(hereafter "Andhra Petro") challenge to orders of the Designated
Authority (hereafter "DA"), which related to the question of imposition
of anti-dumping duty.
2. The facts are that Andhra Petro applied to the Central
Government, seeking imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of normal
Butanol or N-butyl alcohol originating in and exported into India from
Saudi Arabia. Butanol is a basic organic chemical and a primary alcohol;
it is an excellent solvent for acid-curable lacquers and baking finishes. A
large part of normal Butanol is converted into derivatives for use as
solvents in coating industries. This application resulted in the initiation of
investigation by the designated authority into the import of the subject
articles from Saudi Arabia, by notification dated 02.09.2016.
3. Andhra Petro furnished import data for the period of three
months. The period of investigation was from April, 2015 to March,
2016. The Designated Authority granted a public/oral hearing to interested
parties on 23.06.2017 followed by written submissions. Andhra Petro
also attended the hearing and filed detailed submissions on 30.06.2017.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1163
It alleged that the information given was not only for the period of
investigation but also for the entire injury period, 2012-13 to 2014-15.
Andhra Petro admitted that dumping from Saudi Arabia occurred in the
last three months of the period of investigation, i.e., January to March,
2016, and that there were no imports from Saudi Arabia in the first nine
months of the period of investigation, i.e., from April to December, 2015.
It claimed that dumping of the same product also took place from Malaysia,
Singapore, South Africa, the USA and the European Union. The period
of investigation by the Designated Authority covered investigation in
respect of imports from these exporting territories too. The application
further claimed that though imports from Saudi Arabia started only in
January, 2016, the volume of such dumped imports was significant enough
to cause material injury to the domestic industry. This was to the extent
of capturing 39% of the market share in India.
4. Andhra Petro asserted that the exports from Saudi Arabia into
India were not casual exports but were made with the intention of grabbing
the Indian market. Such exports into India from Saudi Arabia were
undercutting and depressing the prices of the domestic industry to a
significant extent, according to it, and performance of the domestic
industry during the period, January to March, 2016, was adverse in terms
of profits and returns on investments. The following parameters, per the
petitioner company, demonstrated the causal link between the said exports
and the injury caused. The dumped imports from the subject country
entered the Indian market in the period Jan-Mar 2016 [last 3 months of
the period of investigation ("POI")] in such significant volumes that
improvement in volume parameters seen in the performance of the
domestic industry in the first 9 months of the POI (Apr-Dec 2015), was
completely wiped off. There was significant difference between the
prices offered by the domestic industry and the foreign producer. Thus,
the domestic industry was unable to raise the prices above the costs as
a result of dumping of the product in the country.
5. The domestic industry was able to increase its sales at the cost
of sub-optimal prices in the first 9 months of the POI (Apr-Dec 2015).
However, the sales volumes declined drastically in the period Jan-Mar
2016 (last 3 months of the POI) even when the domestic industry offered
still lower prices as fresh dumping from Saudi Arabia started in this
period. Nevertheless, it was alleged that the imports were significantly
undercutting the domestic prices. Resultantly, the price undercutting was
THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY & ORS. v. M/S. THE
ANDHRA PETROCHEMICALS LTD. [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
creating price pressure on the domestic industry, and the reduction in
profits directly resulted in deterioration in returns on capital employed
and cash flow. Thus, deterioration in profits, return on capital employed
and cash flow was due to the dumped imports.
6. In the investigation proceedings, Andhra Petro submitted its
written submissions on 27.10.2017, pursuant to the second oral public
hearing held on 24.10.2017 owing to the change in the incumbent holding
the office of the Designated Authority. It also filed rejoinder submissions
on 01.11.2017. In terms of Rule 16 of the Customs Tariff (Identification,
Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Article
and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereafter the "Rules
of 1995"), the Designated Authority disclosed essential facts under
consideration, which would form the basis for his final conclusion under
the Disclosure Statement dated 14.11.2017. Andhra Petro filed its
comments on such statement, on 21.11.2017. The Designated Authority
issued the Final Findings, by Notification dated 28.11.2017, terminating
the investigation under Rule 14(b) of the Rules of 1995.
7. The Designated Authority recorded the following findings:
(i) Period of last 3 months of POI of exports of subject goods
from Saudi Arabia was insufficient to evaluate injury to the
domestic industry as material injury determination would require
data on imports and domestic industry's sales for a longer duration.
(ii) The short period of production especially commercial production
of just one month also constrained determination of a
representative and realistic normal value for cooperating producers/
exporters.
(iii) Causal link between imports from Saudi Arabia and injury to
the domestic industry could not be conclusively established on the
basis of three months of export period.
(iv) The Authority did not consider it appropriate to recommend
levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on the subject goods from Saudi Arabia
and terminated the investigation under Rule 14(b) of Anti-Dumping
Rules.
8. Andhra Petro approached the Telangana High Court,
complaining that its two applications, dated 18.10.2016 and 02.12.2016
had not been duly considered in accordance with provisions of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1165
Customs Tariff Act, 1975, especially Rules 2(b) and 2(d) of the Rules of
1995. This writ petition was allowed by order dated 09.02.2018, directing
the Designated Authority to consider the applications dated 18.10.2016
and 02.12.2016 afresh, after evaluation of the entire information placed
before him in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act,
1975 and the Rules of 1995, more particularly Rules 2(b) and 2(d) of the
Rules of 1995 and pass appropriate orders within a time frame. Further
to these directions, the Designated Authority passed an order dated
05.03.2018 declining to initiate anti-dumping investigation. This order
was impugned by Andhra Petro in another writ petition (WP 11116/2018,
hereafter "the second writ petition") before the Telengana High Court.
9. Before the High Court, Andhra Petro now contended that it
was a producer of 2-EH which is a "like article" (as defined under Rule
2(d) of the Rules of 1995), to 2-PH and INA. It contended that it satisfied
the criteria under Rule 2(b) read with Rule 2(d) of the Rules of 1995 to
file a petition for imposition of anti- dumping duty concerning imports of
the said alcohols on behalf of the domestic industry. It was further
contended that in spite of a specific direction of this Court dated
09.02.2018 passed in WP 25988/2017, the Designated Authority did not
determine whether the dumped products cause injury to the domestic
industry in the commercial competition with like articles made in India
and passed the impugned order declining to initiate anti-dumping
investigation.
10. The Central Government, which filed its return, to the Writ
proceeding argued that Andhra Petro produced only 2-EH, not INA and
2-PH, and as it filed the combined application for all the said products,
the Designated Authority rejected the request of the petitioner. The letters
produced by Andhra Petro to show that 2-EH, INA and 2-PH are 'like
articles', were not issued by any independent/recognised agency/source
and hence they could not be considered. It was further stated that though
several opportunities were given to Andhra Petro seeking clarifications
as to how the acyclic alcohols i.e., 2-EH, INA and 2-PH are 'like articles'
when it does not produce INA and 2-PH, it did not submit any clarification,
and it filed a combined application for imposition of anti-dumping duty
for all three products.
11. The High Court disposed of the second writ petition on
28.08.2018 making the following observations and directions:
THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY v. M/S. THE ANDHRA
PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
"7. In spite of specific direction of this Court in W.P.No.25988
of 2017 dated 09.02.2018, the second respondent has not
dealt with the applications of the petitioner afresh in true
letter and spirit of the said order and passed the impugned
order. The second respondent, relying upon the order of the
Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New
Delhi in Appeal No.C/411/2000 dated 11.04.2001 whereby it
held that Normal Hexanol is not one manufactured or
produced by domestic industry, passed the impugned order
stating that it is decided not to initiate anti-dumping
investigation concerning imports of INA, 2-PH and 2-EH
originating in or exported from Saudi Arabia, EU and
Singapore, excluding 2-EH having carbon No.8 from EU.
While passing the impugned order, the second respondent
ignored the final findings dated 29.07.2003 and the order of
the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(CESTAT) dated 13.04.2006 in the case of Andhra
Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority 2006 (201) ELT
481 (Tri.-Del.) with regard to dealing of 'like articles' and to
accept 2-EH supplied by the domestic industry is 'like article'
to 2-PH and INA imported from subject countries. The
petitioner is the producer of 2-EH which is a 'like article' to
2-PH and INA and it falls within the ambit of Rule 2(b) read
with Rule 2(d) of the Rules of 1995. Rules 2(b) and 2(d) of
the Rules of 1995 read as under.
"2(b) 'domestic industry' means the domestic producers as a
whole engaged in the manufacture of the like article and any
activity connected therewith or those whose collective output
of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total
domestic production of that article except when such
producers are related to the exporters or importers of the
alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in
which case such term 'domestic industry' may be construed
as referring to the rest of the producers:
Provided that in exceptional circumstances referred to in subrule (3) of Rule 11, the domestic industry in relation to the
article in question shall be deemed to comprise two or more
competitive markets and the producers within each of such
market a separate industry, if -
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1167
(i) the producers within such a market sell all or almost all of
their production of the article in question in that market; and
(ii) the demand in the market is not in any substantial degree
supplied by producers of the said article located elsewhere
in the territory."
*****************
2(d) 'like article' means an article which is identical or alike
in all respects to the article under investigation for being
dumped in India or in the absence of such an article, another
article which although not alike in all respects, has
characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under
investigation."
8. The second respondent has not considered the issue whether
the imported products and the domestic products are
technically and commercially substitutable and has not come
to a conclusion on 'like article'. This action of the second
respondent becomes absolutely ignoring the order of this Court
dated 09.02.2018 in W.P. No. 25988 of 2017 and the
impugned order is one without application of mind. There is
no cogent reason pushing the petitioner to file repeated
applications and the second respondent cannot pass orders
in a routine and casual manner, in spite of sufficient material
available with him.
 9. In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed, setting
aside the order of the second respondent dated 05.03.2018.
The second respondent is directed to take steps for initiating
investigation to determine the anti-dumping in respect of import
of INA having carbon No.9 from European Union and
Singapore and 2-PH having carbon No.10 from European
Union, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand
closed. No order as to costs."
12. Pursuant to the High Court's directions, the DA issued notices
on 28.09.2018, 24.10.2018 and 03.12.2018. After noticing that Andhra
Petro's initial application was in 2016 (i.e.18.10.2016 and 02.12.2016),
the DA issued letters seeking updated data from Andhra Petro. However,
THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY v. M/S. THE ANDHRA
PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
Andhra Petro filed WP No.2639/2019 before the High Court against the
DA's letters of 28.09.2018, 24.10.2018 and 03.12.2018. The DA filed its
reply before the High Court, contending inter alia that first, the High
Court's order dated 28.8.2018 did not prohibit it from calling for updated
data and had directed it (DA) to initiate investigation in accordance with
law; second, that it sought updated data to evaluate and comply with the
High Court's order fairly; and lastly that Andhra Petro was silent on the
fact that the data filed by it was 30 months old.
13. Apparently, in view of certain observations made during the
proceedings by the High Court, the DA felt constrained to issue a notice
of investigation on 09.07.2019 which inter alia, stated as follows:
"8. The writ petition was listed on 3.7.2019 wherein the
Hon'ble High Court advised the law officer representing
the Authority that requesting the industry to file fully
documented application as per the prescribed proforma
available on the website including all data related to recent,
updated, period of injury and POl etc., is in violation of
the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court dated
28.8.2018 in WP No.11116/2017 and therefore was inclined
to initiate suo moto contempt proceedings and directing
the Designated Authority to appear before the Hon'ble
High Court. The Hon'ble Court granted one weeks' time
and posted the matter on 9.7.2019.
9. In view of the above, the Authority hereby initiates an
AD investigation into the alleged dumping and consequent
injury to the domestic industry in terms of rule 5 of AD
rules to determine the existence, degree and effect of
alleged dumping and to consider recommending the amount
of anti-dumping duty which if levied, would be adequate
to remove the injury to the domestic industry."
14. Para 12 of the notice read as follows:
"The Petitioner has filed data for the period January 2016
to December 2016. In view of the High Court's order, the
Authority initiates the investigation by prima facie
evaluating dumping and injury based on the data provided
by the applicant. However, to investigate further the POI
is proposed to be considered, as 1.4.2018 to 31.3.2019 to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1169
evaluate dumping, injury and causality of injury to the
petitioner due to alleged dumping."
15. Later, on the same date, a corrigendum was issued and para
12 was amended by adding the following in the last line:
"The injury investigation period will however cover the
periods April 2015-March' 2016, April 16-March 2017,
April 2017-March 2018 and the period of investigation."
16. By the first impugned order, the High Court initiated suo motu
contempt proceedings after recounting the previous litigation and its
directions, in those petitions. It noted that the DA, after disposal of the
first petition, undertook the exercise only in relation to the period of
investigation sought by Andhra Petro without enlarging it (i.e. the period);
this led to the order of the DA rejecting the application on 5 March,
2018, and the filing of the second writ petition, which led to the second
remand. The High Court said that the notification (dated 09-07-2019)
therefore, "cannot be countenanced" and further observed that:
"The action of the Designated Authority in seeking to enlarge
the period of investigation pursuant to the second remand
order when it did not find any such necessity in relation to
the first remand order clearly indicates its lack of bonafides,
if not worse, and its intent to tamper with judicial orders.
9. Further, the tone and tenor of the language used in para 8
of the Initiation Notification dated 09.07.2019, set out supra,
clearly demonstrate the Designated Authority's disrespect
towards the Court. It is indeed shocking to note that the
Designated Authority thinks that the High Court is advising
it in the scheme of things! Further, having termed the direction
of this Court to be mere advice, the Designated Authority then
proceeded to brush it aside.
10. In these circumstances, we deem it appropriate to initiate
suo motu contempt proceedings against Sri Sunil Kumar,
Additional Secretary & Designated Authority, Directorate
General of Trade Remedies, Department of willful and
deliberate disobedience to the order dated 28.08.2018 in W.P.
No.11116 of 2018, as indicated supra, and for his utter lack
of respect towards the Court. Registry is directed to take
THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY v. M/S. THE ANDHRA
PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
necessary steps in this regard and place the suo motu contempt
case before this Court after numbering the same."
17. Close on the heels of the order (dated 22.07.2009) initiating
suo motu contempt, the High Court, by the second impugned order
disposed of the writ petition [W.P.(C) 2639/2019]. The Court observed
inter alia as follows:
"2. We may note at this stage that the matter arises under the
Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of
Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Article and for Determination
of Injury) Rules, 1995. After filing of this writ petition, we
were informed that Mr. Sunil Kumar, the present Additional
Secretary & Designated Authority, Directorate General of
Trade Remedies, Department of Commerce and Industry,
Government of India, issued Initiation Notification dated
09.07.2019, demonstrating that the apprehension of the
petitioner company was not without foundation. In the light
of this development, this Court was constrained to initiate
suo motu contempt proceedings against the said authority by
name.
3. That being so, we are of the opinion that it would not be
proper for the said authority to undertake the necessary
exercise pursuant to the order dated 28.08.2018 passed in
W.P. No.11116 of 2018. We are informed that there are three
officers, viz. Mr. Mithileshwar Thakur, Mr. Satish Kumar and
Ms. Shubhra, all of the rank of Additional Director General
in the Department, who would be competent to take up the
exercise pursuant to the aforesaid order.
4. Sri K. Lakshman, learned Assistant Solicitor General for
India, would inform this Court that the designated authority
would have to be appointed by the Union of India.
5. We accordingly dispose of the writ petition directing the
Union of India, the third respondent herein, to choose one of
the aforestated officers and appoint him/her as the designated
authority to do the needful and undertake the exercise
pursuant to the order dated 28.08.2018 passed in W.P.
No.11116 of 2018. This exercise shall be completed
expeditiously by the Union of India and in any event, not
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1171
later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs."
18. The learned Attorney General for India contends that both the
impugned orders are unsustainable. It is urged that while issuing the
notification on 09.07.2019, the DA acted within the framework of the
law. The Attorney General highlighted the importance of Rule 5(3) of
the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Antidumping duty on Dumped Article and for Determination of Injury) Rules,
1995 as well as the relevant part of the Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP) and submitted that consideration of contemporaneous if not the
latest data is a per-condition for the launch of valid investigation by the
DA.
19. It is submitted that the DA is duty bound to satisfy itself, upon
being presented with evidence with respect that it adequately establishes
dumping injury and causal link. Hence, adducing recent data for the
purpose of evaluation of such parameters is essential. Highlighting that
the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), especially para 5.9, has been
consistently adopted in this regard, it was further stated that this method
of investigation is in consonance with the WTO's jurisprudence as well
as the recommendation of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices in
the WTO.
20. It is submitted that the question of whether any goods fall
within the term "like article" is a technical one that is to be substantiated
by relevant data. In these circumstances, the position adopted by the
DA requiring the furnishing of such relevant data can never be contrary
to law, much less the subject of issuing suo motu proceedings. It was
argued lastly that the choice of an officer acting as DA is left to the
discretion of the Central Government and the circumstance that the
incumbent to that office sought to "enlarge the period of investigation"
was not a justifiable reason for directing his removal and substitution
with another. The learned Attorney General submitted that whether any
article or goods fulfill or do not fulfill the description of "like article" are
matters falling within the exclusive domain of the DA, who is a quasijudicial authority exercising statutory powers. He urged that the Court
cannot lightly direct the substitution of one official with another on the
assumption that non-inclusion of some goods in the expression "like
article" was mala fide. The learned AG urged the Court to review the
THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY v. M/S. THE ANDHRA
PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
impugned order on the two specific grounds, i.e. that the so-called
"enlarged period" is contrary to law and consequently that non-inclusion
of articles other than those notified, too was not justified. These fall
within the exclusive domain of the DA and could not be interfered with
in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
21. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for Andhra
Petro argued that the impugned orders do not call for interference. It
was argued that the DA, despite repeated directions, failed to appreciate
the submission by Andhra Petro, that the material on record disclosing
that 2-Ethyl Hexanon (2-EH) supplied by the domestic industry is an
article like 2-Propytheptyl Alcohol (2-PH) and Isononanol (INA)
imported from the concerned countries. It is urged that commercially
and technically, the two products can fall within the description of "like
product" relatable to 2-Ethyl Hexanol offered by Andhra Petrochemicals
Limited. Therefore, for a valid initiation of investigation, Andhra
Petrochemicals Limited satisfied the criteria enumerated under Rule 2(8).
22. It was contended that the DA failed to appreciate that as long
as the product is imported, duty can be imposed on all types of goods,
provided such type of goods is in commercial competition with a like
article. Highlighting that the domestic producer in terms of Rule 2(8)
should be engaged in the manufacture of like articles to enable the filing
of a complaint and seeking imposition of anti-dumping duty upon the
dumped article, learned counsel submitted that the two products in question
were kept out of the investigation. Mr. Rohatgi argued that the scope of
the term "like article" includes those which have closely resembling
characters with the one in question.
23. It was submitted that the deliberate and persistent omission of
the DA to comply with the High Court's directions was contumacious
and invited stringent action, meted out by the impugned order. Learned
Senior Counsel highlighted that so far as the period of investigation was
concerned, in none of the previous proceedings did the DA ever disclose
that data other than the period mentioned in the complaint too required
inclusion for the purposes of investigation. Not having done that in the
1"Section 9A. Anti-dumping duty on dumped articles. -
(1) Where any article is exported by an exporter or producer from any country or
territory (hereinafter in this section referred to as the exporting country or territory) to
India at less than its normal value, then, upon the importation of such article into India,
the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, impose an anti-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1173
earlier proceedings, the DA was precluded from insisting that a period
or periods other than what were the subject of complaint too had to be
included and relevant data for that end had to be given. The approach of
the DA likewise in regard to the question of "like article" is contrary to
law.
Analysis & Conclusions
24. The relevant provision, i.e. Section 9A of the Customs Tariff
Act is extracted in the footnote below1. Section 9C of the Customs Tariff
Act provides for an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal (CESTAT) against an order "of determination or review thereof
regarding the existence, degree and effect of any subsidy or dumping in
relation to import of any article."
25. This court, in S&S Enterprise v. Designated Authority2,
observed that "the purpose behind the imposition of the duty is to
curb unfair trade practices resorted to by exporters of a particular
country of flooding the domestic markets with goods at rates which
are lower than the rate at which the exporters normally sell the
same or like goods in their own countries so as to cause or be likely
to cause injury to the domestic market." It was noted that levy of
anti-dumping duty is a move to remedy injury, recognized by GATT that
balances
dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping in relation to such article.
 **********************
(5) The anti-dumping duty imposed under this section shall, unless revoked earlier,
cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition:
Provided that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation
of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may,
from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period of five years
and such further period shall commence from the date of order of such extension:
Provided further that where a review initiated before the expiry of the aforesaid period
of five years has not come to a conclusion before such expiry, the antidumping duty may
continue to remain in force pending the outcome of such a review for a further period
not exceeding one year.
******************
2 (2005) 3 SCC 337
THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY v. M/S. THE ANDHRA
PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 7 S.C.R.
"the right of exporters from other countries to sell their
products within the country with the interest of the domestic
markets." Thus the factors to constitute 'dumping', are (i) an
import at prices which are lower than the normal value of the
goods in the exporting country; (ii) the exports must be
sufficient to cause injury to the domestic industry."
26. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority3 explained
that industries built after independence with great difficulty should not
be allowed "to be destroyed by unfair competition of some foreign
companies. Dumping is a well-known method of unfair competition
which is adopted by the foreign companies." The Court also said
that,"The purpose of Section 9-A is, therefore, to maintain a level
playing field and prevent dumping while allowing for healthy
competition."
27. The DA, no doubt, follows a prescribed quasi-judicial procedure
where a determination on whether to impose or not to impose antidumping duty takes place (through a report).4 However, this proceeding
culminates with a recommendation; the Central Government finally
decides whether to impose such a duty, the extent of such duty, and its
duration.5 Under Rule 4, the DA is duty bound to conduct i) investigation
of the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping in relation
to imports of any article ; (ii) identify the article(s) on which anti-dumping
duty is to be imposed; (iii) submit findings, provisional or otherwise to
Central Government; (iv) determine the normal value, export price and
the margin of dumping in relation to the article under investigation; and
(v) determine the injury or threat of injury to an industry established in
India or material retardation to the establishment of an industry in India
consequent upon the import of article from specified countries. The
meaning of dumping is defined by Rule 10.6 Rule 17, which speaks of
the findings of the DA, obliges that authority to make its final findings
3 (2006) 10 SCC 368
4 Tata Chemicals v. Union of India, (2008) 17 SCC 180; Automotive Tyre Manufacturers
Association v. the Designated Authority (2011) 2 SCC 258
5 Rule 17 which speaks of "recommendation" by the DA. Also, the power to levy duty is
discretionary, evident from Rule 18 which leaves it to the Central Government to levy
anti-dumping duty, by following the prescribed methods
6 Rule 10 reads as follows:
"10. Determination of normal value, export price and margin of dumping.