I am sharing here the reference documents for my case-study on safeguard duty investigation and the inter-play between various stakeholders.
This 150 page document is actually a learning itself. DG- Safeguard has taken out a conservative duty support – but then SafeGuard Duties ( SGD) are not Anti-dumping Duties and are not final! What is important is that he has navigated all possible controversies that could have challenged it on a global platform and yet delivered a judgment that supported the domestic industry.
There is a controversy that the domestic units in Special Economic Zones (SEZ) are not covered under the order. Actually, I think DG-SD has correctly passed that decision on to relevant competent authorities ( the Customs authorities). And there the decision could well be to levy duties only where applicable on inputs and not duplicate duties on output. That is a story that has yet to be unveiled at this stage…but I am hopeful.
Attached are the actual representations to DG-SG by various stakeholders. Yes – the sheer numbers of developer interests could have overwhelmed the DGTR – and the DI. The DG-SG judgment has also to be seen in the light of these representations. He has carefully separated the chaff from the wheat. He has pointed out where the quoted legal references were wrong and had been retracted – and were , therefore, not applicable to this case. It also shows the extent to which the issues were misrepresented by the vested interests that wanted to abort the domestic industry.
I would like to add that the observations shared here are purely personal and not of any corporation – and the entire case representation has been purely for educational purpose. As shared in the author’s notes – role plays of different stakeholders, a detailed dive-in to the issues involved can build a greater understanding of the regulatory challenges of balancing interests and emotions – and of the responsibilities for enabling the industry.