2016 (10) TMI 607 - AT - Customs

Imposition of CVD - Castings for Wind Operated Electricity Generators - imported from China PR - N/N. 1/20 16-Cus (CVD) dated 19.01.2016 - basis for initiating investigation by DA - Rule 6 of CVD Rules - scope of investigation by DA - Held that - The DA had examined volume effect of the subsidised imports on domestic industry, price effect (underselling), other economic parameters. When the interested parties do not co-operate to the fullest extent, then reliance upon best available facts is acceptable alternative for the DAs worldwide, while proceedings with investigation. The DA went ahead with investigation only where sufficient, prima-facie data was provided by DI. The investigation was terminated wherever such data was not provided by DI. Adequate opportunities were provided to the interested parties by the DA to make submissions. The DA had also examined the question regarding scope of the term public body in terms of Article I of Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures - investigation carried out by DA devoid of any limitations - CVD rightly imposed - appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to imposition of Countervailing Duty (CVD) based on Final Findings of Designated Authority (DA) regarding imports of 'Castings for Wind Operated Electricity Generators' from China.

Analysis:

1. Initiation of Investigation and CVD Imposition:
The appeal challenges the imposition of CVD by Notification No. 1/2016-Cus (CVD) dated 19.01.2016 based on the DA's Final Findings. M/s Larsen & Toubro Limited approached the DA for an anti-subsidy CVD investigation concerning the subject goods. The appeal specifically focuses on the CVD imposed on producers/exporters other than Zhejiang Jiali Wind Power Technology Company Limited.

2. Lack of Supporting Evidence and Erroneous Calculation:
The appellant, an Association of importers of subject goods, argued that the investigation was initiated without sound basis and supporting evidence. They contended that the principles adopted in calculating the subsidy margin were erroneous, especially in relation to grants and raw material supplies. The appellant highlighted the lack of specific supporting data for various programs and the absence of evidence to indicate countervailability.

3. Non-Cooperation and Legal Challenges:
The DA's Findings were challenged on the grounds of inadequate opportunity for the appellant to clarify their position. The appellant also raised objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal and the challenge to Findings based on financial/material transactions between public bodies and producers/exporters in China. The appellant emphasized the non-cooperation of the Government of China and producers in providing complete details.

4. DA's Findings and Examination:
The DA's Findings focused on determining whether producers/exporters of subject goods benefited from actionable subsidies provided by the Chinese government. Despite the lack of full cooperation and information from China, the DA proceeded with the investigation and constructed subsidy margins based on available data. The DA examined the injury to domestic industry, causal link, and relevant economic parameters as per CVD Rules.

5. Conclusion and Dismissal of Appeal:
After a detailed examination of all issues, the Tribunal found the appeal to be devoid of merit and rejected it. The DA's actions were deemed acceptable given the lack of full cooperation and supporting data from interested parties. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the thorough analysis of the DA's Findings and the legal framework governing CVD investigations.

By pronouncing the judgment on 7.9.2016, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal challenging the imposition of CVD on subject goods from China lacked merit and was therefore rejected.