2003 (6) TMI 212 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of certain Chinese manufacturers from anti-dumping duty.
2. Determination of de-minimis volume for imports from Bangladesh.
3. Validity of anti-dumping duties imposed on imports from Bangladesh.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Exclusion of Certain Chinese Manufacturers from Anti-Dumping Duty:

The primary grievance raised by M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. concerns the exclusion of "industrial" batteries manufactured by three Chinese manufacturers from anti-dumping duty. The appellants argued that this exclusion was not legally correct, as China is considered a non-market economy country. According to the appellants, the normal value of goods produced in China should be determined based on the price or constructed value in a market economy third country, as per the Customs Tariff Rules and relevant notifications. The Designated Authority, however, treated these three manufacturers differently, which the appellants claimed violated the rule of valuation.

The excluded Chinese manufacturers contended that they operate according to market principles and should not be treated as non-market economy units. They provided data to support their claim and argued that the Designated Authority was correct in accepting their information. They also pointed out that the Designated Authority did not commit any legal error and that the notification did not obligate treating all Chinese exporters as non-market economy units.

The Designated Authority admitted that the investigation proceeded without considering the requirements of the notifications issued during the investigation. The Tribunal noted that the investigation failed to comply with the legal requirements under the notifications and that the exclusion of the three units was unsustainable. The Tribunal held that these units should be treated like other manufacturers in China, and the exemption from anti-dumping duty provided to them was set aside.

2. Determination of De-minimis Volume for Imports from Bangladesh:

M/s. Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd. challenged the anti-dumping duty imposed on their exports from Bangladesh on the ground that their imports were de-minimis, being below 3% of the total imports into India. The Designated Authority, however, determined that the exports from Bangladesh were 6%, which is above the de-minimis threshold. The appellants argued that the Designated Authority incorrectly computed the volume of imports based on value rather than quantity, as specified in the anti-dumping rules.

The Designated Authority and the domestic industry contested this submission, arguing that volume can be considered in terms of price/value, especially for items like lead acid batteries that come in different sizes. The Tribunal agreed with the Designated Authority's method of determining the volume of exports based on value, confirming that the approach was reasonable and rejecting the appellants' contention.

3. Validity of Anti-Dumping Duties Imposed on Imports from Bangladesh:

The third appellant, M/s. S & S Enterprises, an importer of Bangladesh Batteries, raised the same contention as M/s. Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd. The Tribunal found no merit in their submission and rejected the appeal.

Conclusion:

The appeal of M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. was allowed, and the exemption from anti-dumping duty provided to the three Chinese manufacturers was set aside. The appeals of M/s. Rahimafrooz Batteries Ltd. and M/s. S & S Enterprises were rejected. The Tribunal replaced the existing entry in the Customs Notification with a new entry imposing anti-dumping duty on all exporters/manufacturers of industrial batteries from the People's Republic of China.