Complete and timely submission of information by supporting manufacturers is crucial to establish the existence of dumping, injury to the domestic industry, and a causal link between the two in antidumping investigations.

The challenge in these proceedings is to an order passed by the Designated Authority by which an investigation under the provisions of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and For Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, has been terminated.

2. The Petitioner engages in the manufacture and sale of Seamless Tubes and Pipes. The Petitioner filed an antidumping application before the Designated Authority alleging dumping of seamless tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of iron, alloy or non-alloy steel (other than cast iron), “whether hot finished or cold drawn or cold rolled, of an external diameter not exceeding of 273 mm or 10”,” originating in or exported from the Peoples Republic of China. The Petitioner sought an initiation of investigation and a levy of antidumping duty on the import of the goods in question. The application of the Petitioner was supported by two other companies Maharashtra Seamless Limited (MSL) and Jindal Saw Limited (JSL). The Petitioner accounted for about 27.09% of the Indian production of goods in 2008-2009. The production of the two supporting companies represented 70% of the total Indian production.

3. An investigation was initiated by the Designated Authority by a notification dated 12 January 2010. The notification recorded that the Petitioner, with or without the exclusion of JSL constituted a ‘domestic industry’ within the meaning of Rule 2 and satisfied the criterion of standing under Rule 5 of the Rules. Under the provisions of Rule 17, the Designated Authority was required to issue a determination within one year from the date of initiation of investigation, this period being liable to be extended by the Central Government in its discretion in special circumstances by a further period of six months. MSL who had supported the application of the Petitioner and being a major producer of the goods in question in the country was called upon by a letter dated 26 April 2010 to submit information pertaining to its costing and as regards the injury alleged to emanate to it. Letters of reminder were addressed to MSL on 3 May 2010, 13 July 2010 and 17 August 2010. JSL, which had also supported the Application, was similarly called upon by letters dated 3 May 2010, 13 July 2010 and 17 August 2010 to submit information and data.

4. On 17 August 2010, the Designated Authority addressed a communication to the Petitioner’s Advocates calling upon the Petitioner to furnish certain information. The letter recorded that both MSL and JSL, who had supported the application, had not provided information in regard to costing and injury despite reminders. By the letter the Petitioner was called upon to ensure that the two companies who had supported the application provided the requisite information by 24 August 2010, failing which it was stated that the application would be treated as withdrawn. This was followed by a letter dated 27 August 2010 granting an extension of time as sought by the Petitioner until 30 August 2010. The Petitioner was once again reminded that the supporting industry would have to submit data by that date. The Petitioner thereafter, addressed a communication on 30 August 2010 by which a disclosure of information was made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner followed this with a further communication of 16 September 2010. A personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner by the Designated Authority on 26 October 2010. In the affidavit in reply, (to which there is no traverse to the contrary), it has been stated that the Petitioner assured that the requisite information and data from MSL would be submitted within a period of two weeks. No data was submitted by the supporting manufacturers.

5. Eventually, by an order dated 18 November 2010, the Designated Authority terminated the investigation, holding that while the Petitioner had a 27% share of domestic production, the balance was held in a majority by the supporting compani