2011 (8) TMI 761 - AT - Customs

Anti dumping duty - Sun set review - imports from the subject 3 countries subject to anti-dumping duty - Held That - Though the volume of imports from the subject countries were less than 7% the dumping margins were 41.73%, 65.31% and 50.70% from China PR, Korea RP and Chinese Taipei respectively. Thus we upheld the findings of D.A. arrived in sunset review merely because he has determined the likelihood of injury by cumulating total imports. - Appeal of assessee dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Condonation of delay in filing appeal, Stay application against final findings, Sunset review of Anti-Dumping duties, Confidentiality of information, Cumulation of imports for injury determination, Challenge to determination of normal value, Likelihood determination in sunset review.

Condonation of Delay:
The appeal was filed with an application for condonation of delay due to the appellants' inability to obtain the list of interested parties on time. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 10 days beyond the prescribed period of 90 days from the date of Customs Notification.

Stay Application:
The appellants sought a stay of the final findings and Customs Notification, claiming a strong case on merits. However, as the appeal was taken up for hearing and disposal, a separate order on the stay application was not passed.

Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties:
The Designated Authority (D.A.) conducted a sunset review following a judgment of the Delhi High Court, recommending definitive anti-dumping duties on 'Flexible Slabstock Polyol' imports. The appellants, importers of the goods, challenged the continuation of duties citing lack of improvement in the domestic industry's competitiveness.

Confidentiality of Information:
The appellants argued that the D.A. maintained confidentiality on relevant information, hindering their ability to challenge the proposed anti-dumping levy. The D.A. defended confidentiality, stating certain details were obtained from the domestic industry and could not be disclosed.

Cumulation of Imports for Injury Determination:
The appellants contested the cumulation of imports by the D.A. for injury determination, citing Anti-Dumping Rules. The Tribunal upheld the D.A.'s decision, justifying cumulation in a sunset review scenario to assess the likelihood of injury accurately.

Challenge to Determination of Normal Value:
The appellants challenged the D.A.'s determination of normal value, arguing they had the right to challenge it. The Tribunal ruled that importers lacked the inherent right to question normal value determination, citing precedent where only exporters or manufacturers could challenge such determinations.

Likelihood Determination in Sunset Review:
The D.A. determined the likelihood of injury in a sunset review, considering the impact of imports from various countries. The Tribunal upheld the D.A.'s findings, noting the reasonable assessment of potential injury and the necessity of cumulating imports for a prospective likelihood determination.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the D.A.'s conclusions well-reasoned to protect the domestic industry from unfair trade practices. The decision aimed to eliminate injury to domestic producers without unduly restricting imports, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the stay application.