Per Dr. T.V. Sairam : The mid term review Notification No. 15/16/ 2004-DGAD dated 13.9.2005 with regard to imports of Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless steel from European Union [EU], Japan, Canada and USA was issued by the Designated Authority (D.A.), Directorate General of And Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi was assailed by the appellant Domestic Industry (DI) before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (in Writ Petition No. 21603/05 dated 18.11.2005). The Hon'ble High Court had disposed off the writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before this Tribunal, holding that if a Notification is gazetted predicated on the impugned final findings in review between that date and the date on which the interim stay application of the petitioner was listed for hearing before this Tribunal, its operation shall be held in abeyance in that interregnum. Central Government in the meanwhile accepted the mid-term review findings of the D.A. and issued Notification No. 99/05-Cus. dated 25.11.2005. The present appeal in challenging inter-alia the withdrawal of Anti Dumping duties imposed earlier against EU and Canada and reduction of Anti Dumping duties against USA and Japan, on the following grounds:

(i) Initiation of mid term review under Rule 23 was bad as the applicant-exporter did not file relevant information/evidence and also absented himself from the proceedings;

(ii) In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rishiroop Polymers Vs. Designated Authority reported in 2006 (73) RLT 558 (SC)=2006 (196) ELT 385, (paragraph 37) and Kalyani Steel Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority Order No. 33/06-AD dated 02.08.2006, (paragraph 11.1) and also the record of the Designated Authority (paragraph 15) of the final findings, the applicant-exporter, seeking mid-term review had to lead evidence that the continuance of Anti-Dumping duties was no longer warranted; and

(iii) The manner in which the whole investigation was carried out had placed the D.I. in an adverse footing particularly due to non-cooperation by the exporter - appellant who was to lead evidence.

2. It was further pleaded that findings in relation to dumping, injury as well as causal link were in favour of the D.I. and yet duties were discontinued arbitrarily against EU and Canada on the ground that the injury margin from these territory/country was negative. It was also pleaded on behalf of the D.I. that injury margin was not a relevant fact or under Section 9A (5) or under Rule 23. Further, it was argued that the entire calculation of injury margin was flawed in the absence of relevant information/ which should have been supplied only by the exporter.

3. It was further commented that D.A. was handicapped in arriving at the correct export price due to non-cooperation by the applicant-exporter as he had to consider only a selective information as made available in DGCIS data. It was also submitted that these data contained material particulars which are not comparable with the grade/type of goods which was constitute the subject investigation.

4. It was submitted further that non submission of information by the applicant-exporter should have automatically led to the termination of the proceedings in terms of the law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rishiroop Polymers (supra) and this Tribunal in Kalyani Steel Ltd., (supra), wherein it has been made clear that, it is for the applicant to establish that the continuation of the duty was no longer warranted. In the absence of such evidence it was argued, the duty should last its normal "life" of five years.

5. By poring over the word "recurrence" appearing in Section 9A (5), it was argued at length on behalf of D.I. that Anti-Dumping duties can be continued even if the dumping and injury have cease