2003 (6) TMI 213 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of standing of the domestic industry.
2. Selection of the period of investigation.
3. Cumulation of imports from Saudi Arabia and Russia.
4. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
5. Determination of normal value.
6. Analysis of injury parameters.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Standing of the Domestic Industry:
The appellant contended that the initiation notification was based on incorrect facts regarding the support percentage of the domestic industry's production. The Designated Authority (DA) found that the petitioners accounted for 43.09% of the total production during the period of investigation (POI) and, with the support of other producers, accounted for 87.98% of total Indian production. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contention and upheld the DA's determination of the standing of the domestic industry.

2. Selection of the Period of Investigation:
The appellant argued that the selection of an 18-month period for the investigation was erroneous. The Tribunal noted that there were no rules prohibiting the adoption of an 18-month period and rejected the appellant's challenge on this ground.

3. Cumulation of Imports from Saudi Arabia and Russia:
The appellant contended that cumulation was inappropriate due to the lack of competition between imports from Saudi Arabia and Russia, as there were no imports from Russia for 12 out of the 18 months. The Tribunal referred to Annexure-II of the Anti-Dumping Rules and previous case law, concluding that the DA was justified in cumulating imports from both countries, as the conditions for cumulation were met.

4. Alleged Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant claimed that the principles of natural justice were violated as the balance sheets of the petitioner and the supporting company were not made available. The Tribunal found that the balance sheet of M/s. Rockhard Petro Chemicals was available in the public file and that the appellant had not substantiated their claim. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's complaint.

5. Determination of Normal Value:
The appellant argued that the DA erred in calculating normal value by adding a flat amount for notional profit instead of using a 5% profit margin. The Tribunal noted that the DA had adopted the average profit earned by the appellant on third country sales, which was in accordance with the rules. The Tribunal found no violation of the rules by the DA in determining the normal value.

6. Analysis of Injury Parameters:
The appellant contended that the DA failed to analyze all injury parameters as required by law. The Tribunal referred to the relevant clause in Annexure-II and noted that the DA had considered all indices regarding injury in the final determination. The Tribunal found that the DA had complied with the requirements and that the appellant's contention was without merit.

Appeals by Domestic Industry:
The domestic industry appealed against the quantum of duty imposed on exports from Russia, arguing that there were errors in the data provided by DGCIS. The DA corrected the data and recalculated the anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal accepted the corrected figures and modified the anti-dumping duty accordingly. The domestic industry also contended that SFCCL should have been declared a non-cooperating exporter. The Tribunal found that SFCCL had provided sufficient data and participated in the investigation, justifying the DA's treatment of SFCCL as cooperative. However, the Tribunal accepted the domestic industry's objection regarding the allocation of SGA and financing costs and directed the DA to rework the costs based on turnover.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by M/s. SFCCL and partly allowed the appeals by M/s. Simalin Chemical Industries and M/s. Rockhard Petro Chemical Industries, modifying the anti-dumping duty as follows:
- Saudi Arabia: All producers/exporters - USD 130.98 per MT
- Russia: All producers/exporters - USD 204.08 per MT