Dhruv GuptaPartner
Bhargav MansattaCounsel
Bhava SharmaConsultant
Key Developments
-
Delhi High Court directs trade authorities to consider representations of importers regarding anti-dumping duty imposed on the import of industrial laser machines
A recent ruling of the Delhi High Court1 has created the possibility of a change in the final decision of the authorities regarding anti-dumping duty on an imported product, as the authorities have been directed to consider representations from stakeholders.
The petitioner had contended that the goods imported by it were distinguishable from the subject matter of a customs notification2 (Notification) imposing anti-dumping duty on the import of a certain product. The petitioner was also not put on notice when the anti-dumping investigation was being undertaken. Therefore, it was not given a chance to make a representation to the concerned authorities before the duty was imposed on it. The Court directed the Director General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) and the Ministry of Finance (MoF) to consider the representation of the petitioner.
Since the Court did not consider the merits of the case, it has not granted an exemption to the petitioner from payment of anti-dumping duty. The Court has also not directed any modification of the impugned final findings issued by DGTR and the Notification issued by the MoF. However, following the directions of the Court, the DGTR conducted a hearing on 2 April 2024. The final decision of the DGTR and MoF, which may either confirm or modify the final findings and/or Notification impacting the importers and users for the product in question, i.e., industrial laser machines imported from China, is awaited.
-
Clarification on ‘further information’ to be provided by importers in certain cases of information mismatch under the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020
The Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, has issued a public notice (Notice) to remove ambiguity about the type of information that can be submitted to support an importer’s claim regarding the originating country of imported goods. The Notice identifies what ‘further information’ can be submitted by an importer to resolve any mismatch of information and to remove doubts about the country of origin of a product for which the invoice was issued by a third party (i.e., an entity other than the producer in the country of origin). The Notice primarily requires importers to submit the invoice of the producer or exporter of the originating country based on which the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) certificate was issued.
This move is aimed at simplifying the rigorous procedure of verification of FTA certificate from the exporting country provided under the Customs (Administration of Rules of Origin under Trade Agreements) Rules, 2020.
-
Increase in trade remedy actions by India on imports from certain countries
The DGTR has initiated 19 trade remedy investigations in the first quarter of 2024 to examine the need for the imposition or continuation of anti-dumping duty/countervailing duty on 19 products imported into India from certain countries.
This number is significantly higher than the seven trade remedy investigations and six trade remedy investigations initiated during the same period in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Pertinently, 16 of the 19 investigations involve China as a subject country or as one of the subject countries under investigation.3
The governments of the exporting countries, exporters, and importers of these products in India are expected to actively respond to these investigations to minimise the impact of trade remedy measures on their business.
The MoF has also imposed anti-dumping duty measures on six products in the first quarter of 2024. This number is again significantly higher in comparison to the two anti-dumping duty measures issued during the same period in 2022 and 2023. China is the subject country in five out of the six anti-dumping duty measures.4 These anti-dumping duties, unless reviewed by the DGTR after a reasonable period or modified/set aside through judicial review, will remain in force for five years (or a lesser period if specified in the concerned notification).
[1] Videojet Technologies India Private Limited v Union of India and Others
[2] Relating to industrial laser machines imported from China
[3] These investigations span various industry sectors and include products such as Acetonitrile, Azo Pigment, plastic processing machines, décor paper, etc.
[4] The products include printed circuit boards, self-adhesive vinyl, cast aluminium alloy wheels or alloy road wheels used in motor vehicles, etc.
