2006 (4) TMI 497 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Preliminary objection regarding the locus standi of the appellant.
2. Adequacy of anti-dumping duty imposed after the sunset review.
3. Methodology adopted by the designated authority in determining the normal value and dumping margin.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Preliminary Objection Regarding the Locus Standi of the Appellant:
The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeal was filed by only one manufacturer and not the entire domestic industry, questioning the appellant's locus standi. The respondent contended that the petition for anti-dumping duty was filed by the domestic industry as a whole, not by the appellant individually, and cited Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act and Rule 2 of the CEGAT (Countervailing Duty and Anti-dumping Duty) Procedure Rules, 1996. The appellant countered this by asserting that it holds a 60% market share and is thus eligible to file an appeal under Section 9C. Additionally, the second manufacturer supported the appeal, as evidenced by an affidavit. The tribunal found that since the second manufacturer supported the appeal, the preliminary objection lacked substance and was overruled.

2. Adequacy of Anti-dumping Duty Imposed After the Sunset Review:
The core issue was whether the anti-dumping duty imposed after the sunset review was adequate to prevent material injury to the domestic industry. The tribunal examined the provisions of Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, which allows for the extension of anti-dumping duty if its cessation would likely lead to continued or recurrent dumping and injury. The designated authority conducted a sunset review, following Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The review involved collecting relevant information from the domestic industry and other interested parties. The tribunal noted that the designated authority verified the data provided by the domestic industry and concluded that dumping would continue if the duty were removed.

3. Methodology Adopted by the Designated Authority in Determining the Normal Value and Dumping Margin:
The appellant argued that the designated authority erred in imposing a reduced anti-dumping duty, criticizing the methodology used to determine the normal value and dumping margin. The appellant contended that the authority should have used the data provided by the domestic industry instead of the DGCIS data and should not have deducted the freight element from the raw material cost. The respondent-exporter from Korea and the designated authority defended the methodology, stating that the raw material cost was adjusted by deducting ocean freight to reflect the cost in the exporting country accurately. The tribunal found that the designated authority followed the correct procedure, considering the non-cooperation of exporters and using the best judgment method based on available information. The authority's methodology in constructing the normal value and determining the dumping margin was deemed appropriate.

Final Order:
The tribunal concluded that the contentions raised by the appellants were misconceived and upheld the designated authority's decision. The appeal was dismissed.

(Pronounced on 4-5-2006)