2011 (8) TMI 672 - AT - Customs

Imposition of Anti-dumping duty on bus and truck radial tyres from China and Thailand - Appellant argued domestic industry did not suffer any injury, the injury analysis done by the D.A. is incorrect - - Held That - From paragraph 128 of the D.A. s report, it is revealed that the domestic industry is producing much more than what it is selling domestically. The capacity utilization of the domestic industry has increased to 72.71% in the POI. As such, when the production, domestic sales and the capacity utilization of the domestic industry has increased, it is difficult to say that the increase in import volumes has adversely affected the domestic industry. - Despite such growth in production, sales and capacity utilization by the domestic industry, the D.A seems to have concluded an adverse volume effect of imports merely by looking at. the rate of growth of the domestic industry. - Such a view is debatable. Therefore injury determination done by the D.A. for the domestic industry is faulty and not convincing and faulty. - The ultimate sufferer is the domestic consumer and imposition of anti-dumping duty in such a scenario cannot also be considered to be in the public interest.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Availability of data from DGCI&S.
2. De minimis import volume from Thailand.
3. Calculation of dumping margin and causal link.
4. Scope of Product Under Consideration (PUC).
5. Market Economy Treatment (MET) for appellant No. 5.
6. Analysis of injury parameters.
7. Redefining the product under consideration.
8. Claims of material injury by the domestic industry.
9. Granting NME status to appellant No. 7.
10. Inclusion of a domestic manufacturer importing radial tyres.
11. Public interest in radialization of the tyre industry.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Availability of Data from DGCI&S:
The appellants argued that the Designated Authority (D.A.) failed to make available the data from DGCI&S, adversely affecting their right of defense. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment.

2. De Minimis Import Volume from Thailand:
The appellants contended that the import volume from Thailand was de minimis, and thus the anti-dumping investigation should have been terminated. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue, focusing instead on the overall injury analysis.

3. Calculation of Dumping Margin and Causal Link:
The appellants challenged the calculation of the dumping margin and the lack of established causal link between dumping and injury to the domestic industry. The tribunal found the injury determination by the D.A. to be faulty and not convincing, thereby negating the need to delve into the dumping margin calculation.

4. Scope of Product Under Consideration (PUC):
The appellants argued that the scope of PUC was overly broad, prejudicing the exporters' interests. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as the primary focus was on the injury determination.

5. Market Economy Treatment (MET) for Appellant No. 5:
The appellants claimed that the final findings did not state whether appellant No. 5 had been granted MET, leading to erroneous normal value and dumping margin determinations. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue due to the overarching conclusion on injury determination.

6. Analysis of Injury Parameters:
The tribunal extensively analyzed the injury parameters, noting that the D.A.'s conclusions on injury were not supported by the data. The tribunal highlighted that the domestic industry showed increased production, sales, capacity utilization, and profitability during the period of investigation, contradicting the D.A.'s findings of injury.

7. Redefining the Product Under Consideration:
Appellant No. 6's request for redefining the product under consideration and their argument that prices for OEM were not affected by import prices were not specifically addressed by the tribunal, as the primary focus was on the injury determination.

8. Claims of Material Injury by the Domestic Industry:
The tribunal found that the domestic industry's claims of material injury were not substantiated. The data indicated growth in production, sales, and profitability, contradicting the D.A.'s findings of injury.

9. Granting NME Status to Appellant No. 7:
The appellants argued that the D.A. erred in granting Non-Market Economy (NME) status to appellant No. 7. The tribunal did not specifically address this issue due to the primary focus on injury determination.

10. Inclusion of a Domestic Manufacturer Importing Radial Tyres:
The appellants contended that a domestic manufacturer importing radial tyres should not be included in the 'domestic industry.' The tribunal did not specifically address this issue, focusing instead on the overall injury analysis.

11. Public Interest in Radialization of the Tyre Industry:
The appellants argued that imposing anti-dumping duty would undermine public interest by affecting the radialization of the tyre industry. The tribunal concluded that in the absence of injury to the domestic industry, imposing anti-dumping duty would not be in the public interest.

Conclusion:
The tribunal found the injury determination by the D.A. to be faulty and not convincing, leading to the conclusion that there could be no anti-dumping duty on the subject goods. Consequently, the Final Findings dated 1-1-2010 and the Customs Notification No. 12/2010 dated 19-2-2010 imposing anti-dumping duty were set aside. The tribunal did not find it necessary to address other grounds raised by the appellants related to the determination of dumping.