BALIA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is a limited Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Amongst others, the petitioner Company is engaged in the business of manufacture of tyres for which it has its manufacturing facility at Kankroli, Rajasthan. For the purposes of its manufacturing in Rajasthan of such tyres, the petitioner imports Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric (NTCF) from various manufacturers/exporters of other countries including from those situated in Peoples Republic of China. THE NTCF so imported is comprised of three different varieties namely, the grey fabric, dipped fabric and Cycle Tyre Cord Fabric (CTC). THE petitioner is also a member of Automotive Tyre Manufacturer Association (ATMA). THE association represents the collective interest of tyre manufacturers.
(2.) THE Association of Synthetic Fibre Industry (ASFI), whose members are the manufacturers of synthetic fibre in India, including NTCF, submitted a written application before the Designated Authority appointed by the Central Government under Rule 3 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter the Anti Dumping Rules/Rules of 1995) on behalf of the domestic manufacturers that the exporters from China are dumping the NTCF in Indian Market and it is causing injury to domestic industry of NTCF and that there is a causal connection between such dumped articles and the injury to domestic industry. In the said petition, it was also alleged that in addition to the material injury already inflicted on the domestic industry, imports from said countries are posing threat of material injury to the domestic industry in future also. On receipt of this petition, the respondent No. 1, the Designated Authority, issued an initiation Notification dated 29.10.2003 for initiating investigation into the imports of NTCF originating or exported from China and in terms of Rules of 1995 framed under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter called `the Act of 1975'). The petitioner is represented before the Designated Authority through the ATMA. The ATMA filed its detailed submissions dated 29.12.2003 setting out its objections regarding maintainability of the petition regarding alleged dumping of NTCF by exporters from China PR. The exporters also filed objections to initiation of anti dumping investigation itself. The ASFI representing the domestic industry of NTCF manufacturers also made its submission. Notwithstanding submission of the detailed objections by ATMA as well as by the exporters as to maintainability of the application, it is alleged by the petitioner that Designated Authority neither called for any information from ASFI nor from ATMA nor from the exporters of the article subject of investigation to India. It was also alleged that Designated Authority did not supply any material/data on which reliance has been placed by the domestic industry and which in the submission of the petitioner was in public domain. No confidentiality could be claimed about it.
(3.) THE petitioner also brought to the notice that applicant ASFI had previously also filed an application before the Designated Authority praying for imposition of Anti Dumping Duty on the alleged imports of the very same article viz. NTCF from Indonesia, Korea, Thailand and Taiwan. On finding causal connection between the exports from the named countries to India with injury to domestic industry as a result of dumping, the Designated Authority in the first instance vide its final findings dated 22.2.2000 recommended imposition of Anti Dumping Duty. However, in its mid term review findings dated 20.3.2003, the Designated Authority recommended to discontinue the said Anti Dumping Duty on the ground of absence of causal link between the dumped article and injury suffered by the domestic industry. This has happened shortly before the fresh petition was filed by the ASFI in relation to imports from China of the very same article NTCF. Significantly, it is pointed out that period under investigation is from 1.04.2002 to 30.06.2003 (15 months) apart from it being a departure from normal period under investigation usually taken is 12 months, the period overlapped the period covered by previous investigation in respect of which no causal link was found in midterm review dated 20.3.2003. After the initiation of proceedings and after the filing of objections against initiation of investigation by the ATMA and the exporters from China, the Designated Authority was informed by letter dated 7.4.2004 by the petitioners that appeal filed by the domestic industry against the mid term review findings dated 20.03.2003 has been withdrawn and therefore, present proceedings are not maintainable as the domestic industry failed to established causal connection even prima facie. ;