Page 373 - MANUAL OF SOP

Manual of OP for Trade Remedy Investigations

nsideration by the designated authority only when it is subsequently
reproduced in writing .
3
SIGNIFICANCE
15.4. The Directorate aims to conduct all investigations in a transparent and
fair manner based on the principles of natural justice. Before finalisation of the
disclosure statement, an oral hearing must be granted before the Designated
Authority in order to provide an opportunity to all the stakeholders including the
Embassy of the respective subject countries, to present their case and make oral
submissions with a view to protect their interest . This also gives a chance to all the
4
interested parties to not only present their case but also hear the views of the other
parties/stakeholders involved in the investigation in the presence of the Authority .
5
This is in line with Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the GATT.
15.5. It is imperative to mention that the Authority has a discretion to grant oral
hearing as the word “may” is used in Rule 6(6) , however, it has been an established
6
practice of the Directorate to grant oral hearing opportunity in each and every
investigation conducted by the Authority.

OPERATING PRACTICES

15.6. For holding a hearing, the investigation team should submit the file to the
Authority who shall then convey a convenient date and time for the same. The
hearing should be held before the finalisation of the disclosure statement, and
also give sufficient time to all the parties to submit their written submissions and
rejoinders after the hearing which can then be included in disclosure statement.

15.7. The hearing date should be fixed in such a manner that it grants reasonable
time to all the interested parties/stakeholders to attend the hearing. Sufficient

3 For jurisprudence relating to Article 6.1 and 6.2 of the GATT, please refer to Para XV of Chapter 24 for WTO
Jurisprudence.
4 Coumarin case, 2011 (27) ELT 733 (CESTAT, New Delhi).
5 See Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v The Designated Authority, and Ors., ¶ 59,2011 (263) ELT 481
(Supreme Court of India) (“The procedure prescribed in the 1995 Rules imposes a duty on the DA to afford to all
the parties, who have filed objections and adduced evidence, a personal hearing before taking a final decision in
the matter. Even written arguments are no substitute for an oral hearing. A personal hearing enables the authority
concerned to watch the demeanour of the witnesses etc. and also clear up his doubts during the course of the
arguments.”)
6 See Rajasthan Textile Mills Association v Director of Anti-Dumping,2002 (149) ELT 45 (High Court of Rajasthan)
where it was held that oral hearing is not an integral part of the opportunity envisaged under the Rules and no
insistence can be laid on oral hearing. However, note that this judgment has arguably been implicitly overruled by
the Supreme Court decision discussed above.

350