2016 (9) TMI 1225 - AT - Customs

Imposition of Anti-dumping duty - import of hot rolled flat products of stainless steel - Final Findings dated 11.10.2011 of Designated Authority (DA), Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce & Industry - notification No. 104/2011-Cus dated 25.11.2011 of Ministry of Finance - Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - Held that - market share alone is not a fair indicator of presence of injury or otherwise. Domestic prices have been undercut by imports from the subject countries throughout the injury investigation period. Further, the prices of domestic industry has not increased in line with increase in costs. The profitability of the domestic Industry has been shown to be adversely affected during the said period. The Tribunal in Kothari Sugars & Chemicals Limited Vs. Designated Authority 2005 (8) TMI 411 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI held that if the volume of imports at a particular price level is sufficient enough to have adverse impact on domestic selling prices, the same should not be taken into account and given due weightage in the analysis. It otherwise meant that even if there are high priced transactions and low price transactions from a country, the very fact that the low price transactions cause injury (with positive injury margin) justifies imposition of duty on the entire country. Regarding source data it has been recorded that the DGCI & S and IBIS data have been used wherever required. The methodology for arriving the NIP has been disclosed. 22% return on investment has been granted to domestic industry as per consistent practice followed in this regard. The injury margin calculation for residual exporters of a country follows a methodology different from that adopted for price underselling which is determined in respect of a country as a whole - imposition of duty justified. Appeal disposed off - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging Final Findings and Customs Notification imposing Anti-Dumping Duty on hot rolled flat products of stainless steel from specific countries.

Analysis:
1. Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigation:
The Designated Authority (DA) initiated an anti-dumping investigation based on a petition by the domestic industry. The investigation period covered was from April 2008 to September 2009, with an examination of injury to the domestic industry from April 2005 to September 2009.

2. Final Findings and Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The DA concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping duty was necessary to counteract dumping and injury to the domestic industry. Notification No. 104/2011-Cus dated 25.11.2011 was issued, imposing anti-dumping duty on the subject goods from specific countries.

3. Appellant's Contention:
The appellants contested the Final Findings on various grounds, including arguments related to pricing, injury analysis, market share, and lack of detailed information provided by the DA regarding country-wise imports and assessable value.

4. DA's Defense and Legal Precedents:
The DA defended the Final Findings, emphasizing the methodology used for determining dumping and injury margins, especially for non-cooperating exporters. Legal precedents were cited to support the DA's authority in analyzing data and recommending anti-dumping duty.

5. Judicial Review and Analysis:
The Tribunal carefully reviewed the appeal records and the Final Findings. It noted the methodology followed by the DA in determining dumping margins and assessing injury to the domestic industry cumulatively from the subject countries.

6. Decision and Dismissal of Appeals:
After thorough analysis, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals challenging the Final Findings and Customs Notification imposing anti-dumping duty. The appeals were dismissed, and stay applications were disposed of accordingly.

7. Legal Precedents and Disclosure Details:
The Tribunal referred to legal precedents related to investigation authority's discretion in relying on available material and drawing adverse inferences when necessary. It also highlighted the methodology used for calculating injury margins for residual exporters of a country.

8. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Final Findings and Customs Notification imposing anti-dumping duty on hot rolled flat products of stainless steel from specific countries. The decision was based on a comprehensive review of the arguments presented by the parties involved and the legal framework governing anti-dumping investigations.

Judges:
- Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President
- Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
- Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)