Govt moves on anti-subsidy;
dumping levies under lens
Tribunal, HC Dismiss Revenue Dept's Stand In Several Cases
Sidhartha@timesgroup.com
New Delhi: At least two judi-
cial pronouncements have ta-
ken a dim view of the finance
ministry's decisions against
imposing anti-dumping and
safeguard duties despite fin-
dings and recommendations
of the Directorate General of
Trade Remedies (DGTR) es
tablishing adverse impact of
cheap or subsidised imports
on domestic industry
Several Indian companies
and industry bodies have gone
to court against the revenue
department's recent deci-
sions, which came after it op
ted to be selective in imposing
anti-dumping or safeguard du-
ties to protect domestic indust
ry The finance ministry and
Niti Aayogare of the view that
such actions impact other pro
ducers in the chain, while the
commerce ministry believes
the DGTR recommendations
come after establishing adver-
se impact on domestic produ-
cers andare in line with World
Trade Organization rules. The
commerce department is of
the opinion that unless such
an action is taken domestic in-
TradeRemedies Allowed By WTO
Anti-dumping duty | Ifa
company exports a product
at a price lower than the price
it normally charges in its
home market, it is said
to be "dumping" the
product. Govts have to
establish that dumping is
causing material or genuine
injury to domestic industry
Countervailing duty | If
dustry will be wiped out.
In one case, the revenue de-
partment's decision to "unila-
terally suspend" countervai-
ling duty on certain varieties
of stainless steel from China
has been quashedand set aside
by the Gujarat high court. The
agencies concerned have also
been asked to complete the
sunset review in line with the
laid down process. Under the
law, a duty is imposed for a spe-
cified period and is assessed
again afterthat, which is refer-
red to as sunset review
The Delhi high courtis
isalso
hearing a bunch of petitions
relatedtoanti-dumpingduty.
Hearing a set of cases, the
domestic producers are hurt
by imports of subsidised
products, countervailing duty
can be imposed
Safeguard action | It
allows a country to
A temporarily restrict
imports of a product if its
domestic industry is injured
or threatened with injury due
to an import "surge"
Customs, Excise& Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal asked the
Centre to reconsider its deci
sions in a bunch of cases whe-
re it decided against accepting
the designated authority's re
commendations. In several ca
ses, where the revenue depart-
ment in the finance ministry
didnot botherto communicate
its final decision, the tribunal
has taken the same view The
law governing anti-dumping
cases
requires the revenue de
partment to decide on a matter
within three months of the
DGTR's recommendations.
"..the decision taken by
the Centre not to impose anti
dumpingduty despitearecom-
mendation having been made
by the designated authority for
imposition of anti-dumping
duty, cannot be sustained and
the matter would have to be re
mitted to the central govern-
ment for taking a fresh deci
sion on the recommendation m
made by the designated autho-
rity" it observed.
At least one of the compa-
nies, Sterlite Industries, who
se complaint regarding safe
guard action on single-mode
optical fibre had established
that there were problems for ti
the domestic industry, had sa- e
id that the finance ministry's
decision was "arbitrary, unre
asoned and bad in law" and
should be set aside.
The tribunal, while main-
taining the principle of natu
ral justice has to be followed,
said, "If the central govern-
ment forms a prima facie opi
nion that final findings of de
signatedauthority recommen
ding imposition of anti-dum-
are not required to
ping duty
beaccepted, then tentativerea-
sons have to be recorded and
conveyed to domestic industry
So as to give an opportunity to
submit a representation."