9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the mid-term review was rightly initiated by the Designated Authority under Rule 23. 2. Whether the withdrawal of duty on imports from the EU and Canada is justified on the ground that the landed value was found higher than the non-injurious price. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Initiation of Mid-Term Review under Rule 23 The appellant Domestic Industry (DI) challenged the mid-term review Notification No. 15/16/2004-DGAD, dated 13-9-2005, regarding imports of Cold rolled Flat Products of Stainless steel from the EU, Japan, Canada, and the USA. The appellant argued that the initiation of the mid-term review was flawed as the applicant-exporter did not provide relevant information/evidence and was absent from the proceedings. They cited the Supreme Court judgments in Rishiroop Polymers v. Designated Authority and Kalyani Steel Ltd. v. Designated Authority, asserting that the applicant-exporter must lead evidence that the continuation of Anti-Dumping duties was no longer warranted. The DI claimed that non-submission of information by the applicant-exporter should have led to the termination of the proceedings, as per the precedent set by these cases. The Tribunal examined the records and found no objection to the existing mechanism for recommending the withdrawal of duty under Rule 23(1), especially when the landed value was higher than the Non-Injurious Price (NIP). The Tribunal opined that it was mandatory for the Designated Authority to determine the injury margin both in mid-term and sunset reviews. The Tribunal also noted that the Designated Authority had sufficient information to initiate the review and that the applicant-exporter had demonstrated that the landed value was higher than the minimum import price, supporting the review process. Issue 2: Justification for Withdrawal of Duty on Imports from EU and Canada The DI argued that the findings in relation to dumping, injury, and causal link were in their favor, yet duties were discontinued against the EU and Canada arbitrarily on the grounds that the injury margin from these territories was negative. They contended that injury margin was not a relevant factor under Section 9A(5) or Rule 23 and that the calculation of the injury margin was flawed due to the absence of relevant information from the exporter. The Tribunal found that the Designated Authority had followed proper procedures in the investigation. The authority determined that the landed value of imports from the EU and Canada was higher than the NIP, implying that the causal link between dumping and material injury was severed. The Tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's findings that the injury margin was negative for imports from the EU and Canada, and therefore, the withdrawal of anti-dumping duties was justified. The Tribunal also noted that the improved performance of the domestic industry could be attributed to the anti-dumping duty imposed in 2001 and the general improvement in the steel industry worldwide. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that there was no warrant for interference with the impugned notification. The appeal was dismissed, and the withdrawal of anti-dumping duties on imports from the EU and Canada was upheld, while the continuation of duties on imports from the USA and Japan was maintained. The Tribunal found that the Designated Authority's conclusions were based on a thorough analysis of the data and were fully justifiable.
|
