2005 (8) TMI 412 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of Russia as a non-market economy.
2. Procedure for determining normal value, export price, and dumping margin.
3. Injury and causal link to the domestic industry.
4. Validity of the imposition of anti-dumping duty.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of Russia as a Non-Market Economy:
The appellant argued that Russia should be treated as a market economy, citing its recognition by the United States in June 2002. However, the designated authority adhered to Paragraph 8 of Annexure-I of the rules, which presumes a country to be a non-market economy if it has been treated as such by any WTO member country within the preceding three years. The appellant failed to rebut this presumption with sufficient evidence as required under sub-paragraph (3) of Paragraph 8, which includes criteria such as market-based decisions on prices and costs, absence of significant state interference, and financial stability.

2. Procedure for Determining Normal Value, Export Price, and Dumping Margin:
The normal value for non-market economy countries is determined under Paragraph 7 of Annexure-I, which includes using the price or constructed value in a market economy third country or the price from such a third country to other countries. The designated authority did not select a market economy third country due to the lack of responses from other exporters and no suggestions from the parties involved. Consequently, the authority relied on the constructed cost of production provided by the domestic industry. The export price was based on the information furnished by the appellant, adjusted for various costs. The appellant's incomplete response to the questionnaire and failure to provide essential data, such as financial statements and cost of production, justified the authority's reliance on the domestic industry's data.

3. Injury and Causal Link to the Domestic Industry:
The designated authority considered all relevant parameters under the rules to assess the injury to the domestic industry. Despite some increase in sales, the domestic industry faced unremunerative prices and low productivity due to the lack of firm orders. The significant price under-cutting by imported products forced the domestic industry to sell below production costs, leading to financial losses. The authority concluded that significant dumping adversely affected the growth of the domestic industry, which had just commenced commercial production. The injury margin was calculated by comparing the ex-factory non-injurious price with the landed value of imported goods.

4. Validity of the Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The designated authority's final findings, which included the determination of dumping and injury, were accepted by the Central Government, resulting in the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty. The duty was set equal to the difference between a specified amount and the landed value of the goods. The Tribunal found no error in the authority's reasoning and upheld the imposition of the anti-dumping duty, dismissing the appeal.

Final Order:
The Tribunal, agreeing with the designated authority's reasoning and conclusions, dismissed the appeal and upheld the imposition of the anti-dumping duty. The miscellaneous applications were disposed of as not pursued. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 12-8-2005.

← Previous Next →