2006 (5) TMI 217 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the mid-term review initiation.
2. Applicability of the de minimis rule in mid-term reviews.
3. Justification for excluding Republic of Korea and Indonesia from anti-dumping duties.
4. Exclusion of Iso Decanol from anti-dumping duties.
5. Retrospective effect of the anti-dumping duty notification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Mid-term Review Initiation:
The designated authority initiated the review investigation of anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of Oxo alcohols from multiple countries. The domestic industry contested the initiation of the mid-term review, arguing that there were no sufficient grounds for it. However, the designated authority had received information from interested parties, such as the Indian Plasticizers Manufacturers Association, which justified the review. The Tribunal held that the initiation was validly done under Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, as the designated authority had reached its subjective satisfaction based on objective material.

2. Applicability of the De Minimis Rule in Mid-term Reviews:
The exporters argued that the dumping margin for SABIC was less than 2% (1.87%), and thus, no anti-dumping duty should be imposed. The Tribunal noted that Rule 14(c), which reflects the concept of de minimis, applies to initial investigations and not to mid-term reviews. The provisions of Rule 14 were not included in Rule 23, indicating that the rule of de minimis does not apply to mid-term reviews. The Tribunal found that the designated authority had validly determined the dumping margin and injury, and the anti-dumping duty was justified.

3. Justification for Excluding Republic of Korea and Indonesia from Anti-dumping Duties:
The designated authority found no exports of subject alcohols from Republic of Korea and Indonesia during the period of investigation. Without exports, the dumping margin could not be determined, and thus, no anti-dumping duty could be imposed. The Tribunal agreed with the designated authority's reasoning, noting that there was no material to indicate a likelihood of resumed exports from these countries if the duty was discontinued.

4. Exclusion of Iso Decanol from Anti-dumping Duties:
The designated authority excluded Iso Decanol from anti-dumping duties as there was no domestic production of this product, and thus, no injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal upheld this exclusion, agreeing with the designated authority's findings that there was no sufficient evidence to treat Iso Decanol as a "like article" to the domestic products.

5. Retrospective Effect of the Anti-dumping Duty Notification:
The exporters contended that the notification should not have retrospective effect from the date of the provisional anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal agreed, stating that under Rule 20, anti-dumping duty levied under Rule 18 takes effect from the date of its publication in the official gazette. The retrospective effect given to the notification was not warranted. The Tribunal directed that the anti-dumping duty imposed under the impugned notification should be levied prospectively from the date of the notification (20-4-2004).

Final Order:
All appeals were dismissed, but the Tribunal directed that the anti-dumping duty should be imposed prospectively from the date of the notification (20-4-2004), and paragraph 2 of the impugned notification should be amended accordingly.