2016 (10) TMI 70 - AT - Customs

Imposition of Anti Dumping Duty - sunset review - Nylon Monofilament Yarn - landed price upon import - imported from China PR, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Korea RP - proviso B clause of the Notification No. 3/2012 - CUS (ADD) dated 03/1/2012 provides for exemption to certain class of subject goods if their landed price is above a particular bench mark price - Held that - Proviso B group, carries a bench mark landed price of 5.17 US . The bench mark price was fixed at ₹ 172/- k.g. for all types of categories. Later, the same was enhanced to 4.24 US and 5.17 US for two distinct groups for purpose of exemption. After assessing various factors like, volume effect of dumped imports, demand, market share, price effect, price suppression/depression and economic parameters affecting the DI, the DA concluded that the subject goods are entering the Indian market at dumped prices and dumping margin is significant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Final Findings and Notification regarding imposition of Anti-Dumping (AD) duty on Nylon Filament Yarn imported from specific countries. Dispute over exemption clause Proviso B based on benchmark landed price.

Analysis:
The appellants contested the Final Findings and Notification issued by the Designated Authority (DA) regarding the imposition of Anti-Dumping (AD) duty on Nylon Filament Yarn imported from certain countries. The DA conducted a sunset review leading to the recommendation of definitive AD duty on the subject goods. The appellants specifically challenged Proviso B category, which exempts Nylon Monofilament Yarn from AD duty if the landed price is above US $5.17. The appellants argued that linking exemption to a benchmark price is unjustified and arbitrary, especially when the injury to the domestic industry (DI) has been recognized. They emphasized the inconsistency in applying dual forms of duty on the same subject goods and raised concerns about the impact of price fluctuations in raw material costs on manufacturing the subject goods.

The respondents representing foreign exporters and Indian importers contended that the appeal was frivolous as the appellants did not raise objections to the form of AD duty during the initial proceedings. They highlighted India's adherence to the lesser duty rule and supported the DA's methodology in recommending duty to address injury. The exemption based on benchmark price was defended as consistent with past practices of the DA.

After hearing all parties, the Tribunal examined the challenge to Proviso B of the Customs Notification. The Tribunal noted the evolution of the benchmark price and its adjustment based on changed parameters, including price fluctuations in raw material costs. The DA's analysis of various factors affecting the DI, such as dumped imports, market dynamics, and price effects, supported the recommendation for extending AD duties. The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide substantial evidence to dispute the DA's findings, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for lack of merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of AD duty on Nylon Filament Yarn and the exemption clause based on benchmark landed prices. The decision was based on the DA's detailed analysis of market conditions, dumping practices, and the impact on the domestic industry, concluding that the appellants' challenge lacked sufficient evidence to warrant interference with the DA's final findings.