S. Muralidhar, J.

Introduction

1. These petitions raise an important question of law concerning the initiation of Sunset Review (‘SSR’) by the Designated Authority (‘DA’) under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (‘CTA’) read with Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (‘ADD Rules’). They also raise a question regarding the continuation of the notification issued by the Central Government of the anti-dumping duty (‘ADD’), pending the conclusion of the SSR. There are ten writ petitions in all.

2. Six of the writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C) Nos. 146 of 2017, 147 of 2017, 247 of 2017, 640 of 2017, 641 of 2017 and 7464 of 2017 question the decision of the DA not to initiate SSR and consequently, not extend the period for which the ADD would be enforced. Three of the writ petitions, i.e. W.P. (C) Nos. 5088 of 2017, 5089 of 2017, 5095/2017 question the issue of the DA not extending the imposition of ADD whilst SSR was being undertaken pursuant to this Court’s order.

3. W.P.(C) No. 1847 of 2017 by VVF (India) Limited questions the decision of the Central Government not to continue the safeguard duty (SGD) under Section 8B (4) read with Rules 16 and 18 of the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997 (‘Safeguard Rules’).

Facts regarding Kesoram Rayon

4. Kesoram Rayon (‘KR’), a unit of Cygnet Industries Limited (CIL) is the Petitioner in W.P. (C) Nos. 146 and 5095 of 2017. CIL is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kesoram Industries Limited (‘KIL’) and has its registered office in Kolkata.

5. In the year 2005, KR made an application for initiation of anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of Cellophane Transparent Film (‘CTF’) originating in or exported from China PR. In relation to CTF, KR is the domestic industry. Pursuant to the above application, on 27th September 2005, the DA initiated anti-dumping investigation. The DA issued on 28th July 2006 its Final Findings and recommended the imposition of ADD on import of CTF from China PR. On 7th September 2006, on the recommendation of the DA, the Central Government (Respondent No. 2) issued notification No. 94/2006 imposing definitive ADD for a period of five years.

6. Towards the end of the five year period, on 1st December 2010, KR filed an application under Section 9A (5) of the CTA read with Rule 23 of the ADD Rules before the DA seeking initiation of SSR. The DA issued a public notice to review the need for continued imposition of ADD and to examine whether the cessation of ADD is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

7. On 7th February 2011, the DA issued Notification No. 05/2011-Cus amending Notification No. 94/2006-Cus, extending the imposition of ADD for the period during which the investigation in terms of Section 9A (5) of the CTA remained pending. The DA, on 30th November 2011, gave its Final Findings and recommended the continuation of ADD with a different quantum. Accepting the said recommendation, the Central Government issued notification No. 05/2012-Cus dated 13th January 2012, continuing the ADD for a period of five years from that date i.e. till 12th January 2017.

8. On 29th September 2016, KR filed a ‘duly substantiated application’ before the DA for the initiation of the second SSR. With regard to said application, the DA sought substantiation on the following aspects and required KR to attend an oral hearing on 15th December 2016:

(i). the imports are increasing even though ADD is in place;

(ii). the demand for the product was falling along with sales; and

(iii). the financial parameters, including profits, appear to be adverse.

9. KR maintains that by a reply dated 22nd December 2016 it addressed all the concerns raised by the DA and further explained that the likelihood of