The revocation of anti-dumping duty was illegal due to failure to follow mandatory review procedures, emphasizing the necessity of conducting a proper evaluation before such actions.

JUDGMENT :

Bhargav D. Karia, J.

1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate Ms. Gargi Vyas for the petitioners and respondents Nos.1 to 3 in Civil Application No.1 of 2020 and learned advocate Mr. Paresh Dave for the respondent No.6 and the applicant in Civil Application No.1 of 2020 as well as learned advocate Mr. Harsheel Shukla for the respondent No.1.

2. Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates Mr. Paresh Dave and Mr. Harsheel D. Shukla waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

4. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Notification No.03/2020-Customs (ADD) dated February, 2, 2020 issued by respondent no.1 – Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, whereby Notification No.28/2016-Customs(ADD) dated 5th July, 2016 and Notification No.28/2019 – Customs(ADD) dated 24th July, 2019 are rescinded and thereby Anti- Dumping Duty (For short “ADD”) imposed on Purified Terephthalic Acid (here-in-after referred to as “PTA” or the “Product”) originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, Korea RP and Thailand is revoked.

5. Respondent no.2 issued a public notice vide Notification No.14/7/2013-DGAD dated October 8, 2013 initiating the investigation in accordance with Sub-rule (5) of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (For short “the Rules”) to determine the existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping and to recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty, which, if levied, would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry on imports of PTA originating from the aforesaid countries.

6. Respondent no.2 issued the preliminary findings vide Notification No.14/7/2013- DGAD dated June 19, 2014 recommending imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of PTA originating in or exported from aforesaid countries.

7. Respondent no.1 by Notification No.36/2014-Customs (ADD) dated July 25, 2014 imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on PTA originating in or exported from aforesaid countries.

8. Designated Authority - respondent no.2 by final findings issued Notification No.14/7/2013-DGAD dated April 7, 2015 confirming the preliminary findings notified vide Notification dated June 19, 2014 and recommended imposition of ADD on imports of PTA from Korea RP and Thailand.

9. Respondent no.1 imposed ADD vide Notification No.F.No.354/95/2014-TRU dated May 27,2015 for a period of five years from the date of imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty i.e. July 25, 2014 on imports of PTA from Korea RP and Thailand.

10. Respondent No.2 - Designated Authority (For short “DA”) issued a public notice vide Notification No.14/8/2015-DGAD dated June 18, 2015 initiating anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of PTA originating from China PR, Iran, Indonesia, Malaysia and Taiwan.

11. Respondent no.2 in its preliminary findings vide Notification No.14/8/2015- DGAD dated November 12, 2015 recommended imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty on the imports of PTA including its variants “Medium Quality Terephthalic Acid” and “Qualified Terephthalic Acid”, originating in, or exported fr