CHENNAI: A division bench of the Madras High Court has upheld a provision in the Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) Rules which prescribed a time limit for investigation on a plea from producers in other countries to sell their products in India and seek for review of anti-dumping duty.

This Rule was framed under the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995. The centre issued a notification on December 11, 2014 fixing the Anti Dumping Duty at $123.6 per tonne for import of Float Glass from Pakistan.

While so, Tariq Glass Industries Limited in Lahore in Pakistan filed an application to review the duty fixed for export of its Float Glass.

The application, styled as New Shipper Review (NSR), was considered by the authority concerned under Rule 22 of the ADD Rules.

The authority decided to initiate the NSR with regard to import of the glass from Tariq and the period of probe was fixed between July 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016 i.e., nine months. However, the investigation did not get over by March 2016.

Saint Gobain India Private Limited submitted various representations contending that the final notification should not be issued in favour of Tariq. However, on April 10, 2017 the Directorate-General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties of the Union Ministry of Commerce issued the notification, under challenge, after rejecting Gobain’s applications.

Aggrieved, Gobain moved the Madras High Court and a single judge on November 6, 2017, upheld April 10, 2017, notification. Hence, the present appeals to set aside the orders of the single judge and the 2017 notification and connected orders.

Allowing the appeals, a bench of Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad observed that the GATT agreement is the basis of the ADD Rules.

Therefore, the purpose behind that must be the guiding force while interpreting Rule 22, which prescribed time limit. The single judge erred in applying the literal Rule of Interpretation to come to the conclusion that to fix the time limit in Rule 22 would amount to rewriting the rule.

“In our opinion, the rule of purpose of interpretation should have been applied. Keeping in view the spirit of GATT and the stand which India has taken in answering various questions, if the time taken in review under rule 22 is longer than the original investigation, then this would allow the foreign exporter to dump its goods into India. The exporter can manipulate his prices and create documents, if the period for investigation under Rule 22 is not shorter than the original investigation and the very purpose of imposing ADD will be lost,” the bench said.