2015 (2) TMI 912 - AT - Customs

Levy of anti dumping duty - imports of caustic soda - extension of duties on the exports made by the appellant from Indonesia - sunsut review - Whether the Designated Authority was correct in rejecting the exports made by the appellant during the period of investigation as being temporary and unreliable and proceeding to give its findings on the likelihood of dumping and injury on the basis of other exports from Indonesia - Held that - The fact that there were NO (i.e. Zero) exports prior to Jan. 2007 and after Dec. 2007 is certainly an occurrence which, besides being out-of-the-ordinary, has significant bearing for the decision whether these exports can be regarded as temporary and unreliable particularly when no good reasons are forthcoming from the appellant in this regard. Having found the exports of the appellant to be unreliable and temporary the Authority proceeded to determine the likelihood of dumping and injury based on the determination relating to other exports from Indonesia. The Authority found a positive dumping margin, in respect of other exports from Indonesia, as reflected in Paragraph 25 of the Final Findings. It is settled position that anti-dumping duties are required to be country specific and there is no legal requirement to determine the appellant-specific dumping margin in sun-set review. On the aspect of injury, although duties were in force, the domestic industry continued to be injured by the exports from Indonesia, as reflected in the Final Findings. Thus the Authority rightly determined that there is a likelihood of dumping and injury, warranting continuation of duties from Indonesia. - As regards the grievance regarding inadequate disclosure, we find that the appellant has not clearly brought out the specific details, which were not provided to it. The Authority has disputed this. Even otherwise, the Authority has accepted all the information furnished by the appellant, and in respect of their exports determined a negative dumping margin based on the information furnished. Thus, they can not justifiably claim to have been prejudiced. - No infirmity in the findings of the Designated Authority - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the continuation of anti-dumping duties on exports from Indonesia.
2. Reliability and temporariness of the appellant's exports.
3. Disclosure of detailed calculations of normal value, export price, and dumping margin.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Continuation of Anti-Dumping Duties on Exports from Indonesia:
The Central Government imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of caustic soda from the EU (excluding France), Indonesia, and Taiwan for five years, which were later modified. The sunset review Notification No. 48/2009-Cus dated 13.05.2009 continued these duties for another five years for the EU (excluding France) and Indonesia but discontinued them for Taiwan. The Designated Authority initiated sunset review investigations to ascertain the need for continued duties and concluded that there was a likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury from Indonesia and the EU (excluding France) if duties were revoked. The appellant challenged this continuation, arguing that their exports were at un-dumped prices. However, the Authority found that the exports were temporary and unreliable, thus justifying the continuation of duties.

2. Reliability and Temporariness of the Appellant's Exports:
The appellant's exports to India were made only during a limited period and at prices above the normal value. The Designated Authority considered these exports temporary and unreliable because they were confined to a specific period and did not reflect usual business practices. The Authority noted that there were no exports before or after the period of investigation, suggesting that the exports were stage-managed to achieve a negative dumping margin. The Authority's findings were supported by the fact that the appellant's export prices were lower than those reported in the World Trade Atlas (WTA), indicating a likelihood of future dumping and injury.

3. Disclosure of Detailed Calculations of Normal Value, Export Price, and Dumping Margin:
The appellant argued that they were not provided with adequate details of the dumping margin calculations, causing serious prejudice. However, the domestic industry countered that no legal requirement exists for individual dumping margin determination in a sunset review, and the absence of current dumping is not a sufficient ground for revocation of duties. The Designated Authority and the Revenue supported this view, stating that a confidential disclosure was given to the exporter and that the likelihood of future dumping, not current dumping, is the focus of a sunset review. The Tribunal found that the appellant had not clearly specified the details that were allegedly not provided and that the Authority had accepted all the information furnished by the appellant, determining a negative dumping margin based on this information.

Order:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the Designated Authority's findings. The continuation of anti-dumping duties on imports from Indonesia was upheld due to the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury if the duties were revoked. The appellant's exports were deemed temporary and unreliable, and the grievance regarding inadequate disclosure was not substantiated.