It is further submitted that in the absence of specific procedure prescribed elsewhere in the same statute has to be read into Rule 22 and by way of such interpretation Rule 23(3) read with Rule 17, is applicable to Rule 22 and the period to conclude the impugned investigation expired, after expiry of 12 months. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondents submitted that the limitation will not apply to a proceedings under Rule 23 and Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act does not speak of any limitation and in the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the final finding, which has been accepted by the Department and notification dated has been issued, over which if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can prefer an appeal. Further, it is submitted that merely because Rule 18 and other Rules have been referred to in the notification, dated , it cannot render the impugned notification as bad in law and mere quoting of the wrong provision, can at best be treated as a mistake and will not vitiate the notification. Rajagopalan, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. The final findings are without jurisdiction, as the Designated Authority did not seek for any extension of time after the initial period of 12 months was over and in the absence of any order, the prescribed period cannot be extended by a statutory authority on its own or the first respondent. The Designated Authority found that there is enough justification for initiation of the New Shipper Review investigation in accordance with Rule 22 of the ADD Rules and accordingly initiated review vide notification dated (impugned in W. No.14346 of 2017) and the period of investigation is for nine months from to . Parthasarathy, for R3 C O M M O N O R D E R All the three Writ Petitions have been filed by a Private Limited Company, who are engaged in the manufacture of float glass. The third respondent filed an application before the Designated Authority under Rule 22 of the ADD Rules, requesting for a New Shipper Review, in respect of ADD imposed on imports of subject goods originating in or exported from Pakistan.The impugned notification dated , is a result of the review undertaken in terms of Rule 22.It appears that this review being sought for by a producer in a foreign country, who has not exported his product into India, is referred to as a New Shipper Review, though such a term dose not find place in the ADD Rules. The petitioners contention is that Rule 23 provides for two types of reviews; one is popularly called as the mid-term review, which is done after a reasonable period of time has elapsed, since the imposition of the anti-dumping duty.At the end of the 5 years period, the Designated Authority is entitled to undertake one more review in terms of Section 23(1B), for extending the period of the notification beyond 5 years, this is popularly known as the 'sunset review'.Any review initiated under Sub-Rule (1) that is both under Sub-Rule 1A and 1B shall be concluded within a period of not exceeding 12 months from the date of initiation of such review.
(2) Any review initiated under Sub-rule (1) shall be concluded within a period not exceeding twelve months from the date of initiation of such review. Nos.13816 & 13817 of 2017 & 15564 of 2017 & 19202 of 2017 Orders reserved on Orders pronounced on W. No.12950 of 2017 Saint Gobain India Private Limited, rep. Union of India, Ministry of Finance, through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. The Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties, (through the Designated Authority), Ministry of Commerce, Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi. Tariq Glass Industries Ltd., 128 J, Model Town, Lahore, Pakistan. Rajagopalan, Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. The learned counsel referred to various cases, where the New Shipper Review investigation has exceeded 18 months and listed as many as 8 such cases where final findings were rendered by the Designated Authority much after 18 months. & others reported in (2005) 12 SCC 454 and in Designated Authority & others v. However, no such provision has been provided under Rule 22 and this conspicuous omission was a conscious omission on the part of the legislature not to make the aforesaid Rules applicable in view of the nature of review contemplated under Rule 22. Tariq Glass Industries Limited, Pakistan, the third respondent. The recommendation of the Designated Authority was accepted by the Government of India and anti-dumping duty was levied vide notification dated . No.12950 of 2017 has been filed, challenging the final findings given by the second respondent, the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, dated , as modified vide corrigendum dated , by which the Designated Authority recommended Anti-Dumping Duty of USD 23.54 per MT be imposed on imports of clear float glass of nominal thicknesses ranging from 4 mm to 12 mm (both inclusive) produced and exported by M/s. Tariq Glass Industries Limited, under Rule 22 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on dumped articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ADD Rules). The Designated Authority, vide final findings dated , recommended anti-dumping duty at USD 123.61 per MT for goods exported from Pakistan.
No.14346 of 2017, has been filed by the petitioner, challenging the initiation notification issued by the second respondent dated , by which the second respondent initiated a New Shipper Review of anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of clear float glass originating in or exported from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE as requested by the third respondent, M/s. This notification was kept in abeyance subject to the final outcome of the writ petition in W. Therefore, the Court proceeds to consider the submissions of the learned counsels as all of them had advanced arguments on the jurisdiction of the second respondent to initiate the New Shippers Review. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that at this stage the merits of the matter need not be gone into and it would suffice if this Court hears the petitioner on the question of the jurisdiction of the second respondent to initiate proceedings, based on the request of the third respondent, the petitioner would be able to convince the Court, that the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside for lack of jurisdiction. The facts, which are necessary for the disposal of these Writ Petitions, are as follows:- The Designated Authority/the second respondent initiated anti-dumping duty investigation concerning clear float glass of nominal thickness ranging from 4 mm to 12 mm originating in or exported from Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan vide notification dated .