2016 (10) TMI 469 - AT - Customs

Imposition of ADD - Steering Knuckles - import from China PR - Customs Notification dated 12.04.2010 - sunset review - whether the continued imposition of ADD even after sunset review by the DA justified? - Held that - apart from domestic market in China for the appellant, India is the only market for significant trade of subject goods. They do have spare capacity of about 15% for production. There is a positive dumping margin recorded. Though, the price injury has been recorded as negative, this alone cannot form basis for revocation of AD duty. In sunset review it is not only the existence of injury during the current period of investigation is considered, the likelihood of recurrence of such injury in case of withdrawal of AD duty is also to be examined. Admittedly, examination being in the realm of future projection has to be made on the basis of various parameters including trends in import, clear possibility of changed situation in the trade of subject goods etc. The continued import even with imposition of AD duty on the subject goods is one of the indicators to be analysed. The DA observed that with the revocation of AD duties the Indian prices are likely to be attractive to the exporter in China and there is a strong likelihood or increase in substantial import as happened in the post POI period. Excess capacity available with the appellant is one of the relevant factors considered. The performance of DI deteriorated due to decline in demand coupled with price pressure of dumped imports. ADD rightly imposed - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Final Finding in sunset review of Anti-Dumping duty on imports of Steering Knuckles from China PR.

Analysis:
The Designated Authority (DA) conducted an investigation resulting in the imposition of provisional and definitive Anti-Dumping (AD) duty on Steering Knuckles. M/S Bharat Forge Limited approached the DA for continuation and enhancement of the AD duty. The sunset review was initiated, and Final Findings were notified. The appeal specifically concerns Steering Knuckles, not Front Axle Beams. The appellant argued that the DA did not properly analyze the likelihood of injury recurrence if the AD duty is terminated. They claimed that the surplus capacity of the appellant does not indicate a potential increase in dumped exports causing injury. The appellant highlighted the rise in domestic sales in China and the increase in the landed value of the subject goods during the dumping period.

The appellant contended that the DA's findings showed continued dumping of subject goods, despite low import volumes. The dumping margins were positive, suggesting a potential future increase in injurious imports. The appellant's significant trade of subject goods is with India, with minimal exports to third countries. Post Period of Investigation (POI) data indicated consistent imports into India with stable prices. The DA and Revenue supported the findings, emphasizing the continued imposition of AD duty post sunset review.

After hearing all sides, the Tribunal noted the appellant's challenge to the rational basis of the likelihood analysis by the DA. India being a significant market for the appellant's trade, spare production capacity, and positive dumping margins were considered. The Tribunal highlighted that the current injury period and the potential recurrence of injury post AD duty revocation must be assessed in a sunset review. Various parameters, including import trends and the possibility of changed trade situations, are crucial for future projections. The DA's analysis on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury was deemed adequate and sufficient. Citing a relevant case, the Tribunal upheld the DA's analysis, concluding that there was no reason to interfere. The appeal was rejected, and the stay application linked to the appeal was disposed of.