2016 (10) TMI 69 - AT - Customs

Imposition of Anti Dumping Duty - Pentaerythritol - imported from European Union, except Sweden - Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - Customs Notification dated 20.06.2012 - Held that - It is seen that the increase in demand is higher than the increase in production/ sales of the D.I. In spite of improvements in production, sales and capacity utilization, the price parameters of D.I. have significantly deteriorated during the POI. It is brought out in the final findings that the profitability of D.I. improved in 2007-2008 as a result of A.D. duty imposed on imports from other dumped sources. The return on investment should be adopted based on consistent practice followed by the D.A. and the claim made by D.I. There is no legal basis to adopt the resale price of related party in India for calculation price under cutting and injury margin. The landed price is to be as per Section 9(A)(1b). The data for different period cannot be compared. The significant adverse impact of dumped imports may be established in terms of any one or more parameters listed as per the A.D. Rules. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against imposition of Anti-Dumping (AD) duty on Pentaerythritol
2. Examination of findings by Designated Authority (D.A.)
3. Impact of imports from Saudi Arabia on Domestic Industry (D.I.)
4. Inter-se competition analysis between domestic producers
5. Determination of injury margin for the appellant exporter
6. Calculation of return on capital employed
7. Consideration of resale price for injury margin calculation
8. Support for imposition of AD duty by Designated Authority
9. Examination of demand, production, and sales of subject goods
10. Return on investment calculation
11. Price under cutting and injury margin calculation
12. Analysis of un-dumped imports from Saudi Arabia

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved a challenge against the imposition of Anti-Dumping (AD) duty on Pentaerythritol originating from the European Union, excluding Sweden. The appellant, an exporter of the subject goods, contested the duty in the appeal.

2. The Designated Authority (D.A.) recommended the imposition of AD duty after receiving an application and initiating an investigation. The appellant contested the findings of the D.A., questioning the injury margin calculation and the impact of imports from Saudi Arabia on the Domestic Industry (D.I.).

3. The appellant raised concerns about the D.A.'s failure to analyze the impact of imports from Saudi Arabia on the injury suffered by the D.I. and the lack of examination of inter-se competition between domestic producers.

4. The appellant argued that the injury margin for the exporter should have been determined based on the resale price of the importer, not the landed price. The D.I. supported the D.A.'s findings, emphasizing the reasonableness of the return on capital employed and the correct analysis of inter-se competition.

5. The D.A. and the Revenue supported the imposition of AD duty, stating that the procedure under AD Rules was followed diligently. The D.A. examined the demand, production, and sales of the subject goods to determine the injury suffered by the D.I.

6. The Tribunal analyzed the points raised by the appellants and upheld the D.A.'s findings, concluding that there was no merit in the appeals to interfere with the imposition of AD duty. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the decision of the D.A.

7. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on 30.08.2016, with detailed considerations of the arguments presented by the parties and the findings of the Designated Authority regarding the imposition of Anti-Dumping duty on Pentaerythritol.