2016 (10) TMI 81 - AT - Customs

Method for quantification for calculation of Anti Dumping Duty - cold rolled flat products of stainless steel of specified dimension - import from Korea R P, E U and USA - provisions of Rule 4 (d) of Anti Dumping rules - landed value - assessable value - AD duty fixed as amount equal to the difference between a fixed reference price and the landed value of the subject goods - Held that - Rule 4 (d) recommended the amount of AD duty equal to the margin of dumping or less which if levied, would remove the injury to the domestic industry, and the date of commencement of such duty. The reference price based AD duty imposed is based on analysis of various parameters, more specifically of the price behavior of the imported goods, domestic goods, dumping margin and the injury to the domestic industry. Unless it is established with positive evidence that serious error has happened in any of these analysis, Tribunal will not be interfering with the finding of the Designated Authority as the finding of the Designated Authority were based on material facts and the same cannot be overturned based on purported subjective grievance of the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against the methodology of calculating Anti Dumping Duty (AD Duty) linked to a reference price instead of a fixed quantum.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the Final Finding and Customs Notification regarding the methodology of calculating AD duty. The appellant contended that the imposition of AD duty based on a reference price rather than a fixed amount was arbitrary and contrary to Anti Dumping rules. The appellant argued that the reference price method did not adequately address the issue of dumping and injury to the domestic industry, especially considering the fluctuation in prices of inputs and finished goods. The appellant claimed that the Designated Authority did not consult the Domestic Industry properly before making the recommendation, violating Rule 4 (d) of Anti Dumping rules.

The Designated Authority and Revenue defended the Final Finding, stating that the evaluation of dumping margin and injury to the domestic industry justified the recommended AD duties. They argued that the methodology for calculating AD duty was based on a comprehensive analysis by the Designated Authority, and there was no procedural deviation in the process.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellant's grievance was primarily related to the methodology of calculating AD duty. The AD duty in question was determined as the difference between a fixed reference price and the landed value of the subject goods, as per the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that while the appellant challenged the calculation method, they failed to provide a convincing alternative approach for determining AD duty.

The Tribunal reviewed the Designated Authority's Final Findings and observed that the analysis regarding dumping margin, injury to the domestic industry, and the causal link was thorough and not disputed in the appeal. The Designated Authority recommended AD duty based on a constant reference price to offset dumping and injury to the domestic industry, following the lesser duty Rule. The Tribunal emphasized that unless there was concrete evidence of serious errors in the analysis conducted by the Designated Authority, it would not interfere with their findings. As the Designated Authority's decision was based on factual evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the challenge to the methodology of calculating AD duty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of AD duty linked to a reference price, emphasizing the importance of following Anti Dumping rules and conducting thorough analysis to determine the appropriate duty to address dumping and injury to the domestic industry.