2006 (5) TMI 218 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Anti-Dumping Rules by Importers
2. Determination of Normal Value
3. Causal Link Between Dumping and Injury to Domestic Industry
4. Treatment of Chlorine as By-product or Co-product
5. Alleged Non-Disclosure of Import Data Sources

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Anti-Dumping Rules by Importers:
The importers, Hindustan Lever Ltd. and National Aluminium Company Ltd., argued that they fully complied with the Anti-Dumping Rules and filed detailed replies to the questionnaire. However, they claimed they did not receive notice of preliminary findings or public hearings and only learned about the final findings through a press article. The Tribunal noted that the designated authority (DA) had sent necessary notices to the given address of the importers, and the importers did not pursue this point further after seeing the documents.

2. Determination of Normal Value:
The appellants challenged the determination of normal value, arguing that it was based on misleading data and confidential sources. The Tribunal explained that the normal value was constructed using data from the Chlor Alkali Magazine, as the exporters did not adequately respond to the questionnaires. The Tribunal found the information from the Chlor Alkali Magazine to be reliable and stated that the normal value was correctly determined by the DA according to the provisions of the rules.

3. Causal Link Between Dumping and Injury to Domestic Industry:
The appellants argued there was no causal link between dumping and injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal referred to the DA's detailed findings, which established that substantial imports at dumped prices forced the domestic industry to reduce its selling prices to unremunerative levels. The DA concluded that the imports resulted in price undercutting, price suppression, and material injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal upheld the DA's findings, confirming the causal link between dumping and injury.

4. Treatment of Chlorine as By-product or Co-product:
The importers contended that Chlorine should be treated as a co-product rather than a by-product when determining the cost of production of caustic soda. They cited a previous Tribunal decision where Chlorine was treated as a co-product. The DA had treated Chlorine as a by-product, deducting its sale price from the cost of production of caustic soda. The Tribunal found that the method adopted by the DA was in line with the Cost Accounting Records (Caustic Soda) Rules, 1967, and that the cost of production was almost the same when Chlorine was considered at the point of separation. The Tribunal did not find any discrimination in the DA's approach and upheld the treatment of Chlorine as a by-product.

5. Alleged Non-Disclosure of Import Data Sources:
The appellants raised concerns about the non-disclosure of import data sources and inconsistencies in import figures. The Tribunal noted that during the arguments, the differences in figures and their sources were disclosed, and the appellants did not press this point further. The Tribunal concluded that the DA had correctly determined the export price based on DGCI & S data and that the arguments raised by the appellants were not supported by proper evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and upheld the imposition of anti-dumping duty on Sodium Hydroxide (caustic soda) imported from Chinese Taipei, Indonesia, and the European Union (excluding France). The appeals were accordingly rejected.