2016 (10) TMI 901 - AT - Customs

Imposition of ADD - n/n. 4/2015 dated 13.02.2015 of Ministry of Finance - graphite electrodes of all diameters - import from China PR - normal value has not been properly arrived at to fix correct dumping margin - Held that - the argument of the DA against the impugned findings are mostly generic in nature with no specific data based objection. They have contested the findings on various vague assertions like excessive confidentiality for providing data, non-consideration of certain points raised by DI, certain error in data analysis. We have carefully perused the impugned findings by the DA. Each one of the points raised by the interested party has been examined by the DA, who recorded his comments and decisions in respect of the views expressed by them. We find that while determining the export price from China, the DA conducted on site verifications in four units. The DA circulated the report of verification. The export price of sampled exporting producers and their exporters have been done after detailed analysis. It is also pertinent to note that there is no claim for individual normal value for any exporter from China. The normal value constructed for all exporters in China has been compared with ex-works net export price to arrive at the dumping margin for various exporters. The DA also examined the dumping margin for the goods sampled exporters. Articles 6.10 of the Agreement on Antidumping provides that in cases where the number of exporters, producers involved so large as to make such a determination impracticable, the authorities may limit their examination to reasonable number of interested parties. Excessive confidentiality has been accepted in the proceedings - Held that - there is no specific instance brought to our notice, which will have adverse impact on the rights of any of the interested parties. We note that the Domestic Industry as well as the importer/consumer were given ample opportunity to defend their case in terms of AD Rules. The procedure set out therein has been followed by the DA - The impact of import of subject goods on the Domestic Industry has been considered with reference to the state of industry, production, capacity utilization, sales quantum, stock, profitability, net sales realization, the magnitude and margin of dumping in accordance with the standards prescribed in Annexure-II of AD Rules. We also note that wherever the errors in data computation in respect of a few injury parameters were pointed out, the same has been corrected in the Final Findings. The DA examined the data provided by the interested parties and also obtained from DGCI. We find that while DGCI data is also considered but the Final Finding is based on the analysis of large number of parameters as stipulated under Annexure-II of AD Rules. We note that before Final Findings, the DA has made disclosure statements and all the interested parties have furnished their comments, which were also examined and Final Findings were arrived at. The points raised in the present appeal are not supported with material evidence and are devoid of merit. On careful perusal of the Final Findings, we find no reason to interfere with the same - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Condonation of delay in filing appeals
- Proper determination of normal value for fixing dumping margin
- Procedure and principles of natural justice in anti-dumping investigation
- Impact of import on domestic industry
- Examination of data and parameters for final findings

Analysis:
The judgment involves three appeals challenging the Final Findings of the Designed Authority (DA) regarding anti-dumping investigation on graphite electrodes originating from China. The first issue addressed was the condonation of a 4-day delay in filing appeals, which was satisfactorily explained and subsequently admitted for consideration on merit.

The main contention revolved around the proper determination of the normal value to fix the correct dumping margin. The domestic industry argued that the normal value was not accurately established. The consumer industry, on the other hand, contested the imposition of anti-dumping duty, claiming that the DA did not provide them with essential data to defend their case during the investigation.

The judgment scrutinized the procedural aspects and principles of natural justice in the anti-dumping investigation. It was highlighted that the DA considered various submissions and objections raised by the interested parties, ensuring a thorough examination of the data provided. The impact of imports on the domestic industry was evaluated based on multiple factors such as production, capacity utilization, profitability, and dumping margins.

The examination of data and parameters for the final findings was a crucial aspect of the judgment. The DA's reliance on a large number of parameters, including data from the Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence (DGCI), was deemed appropriate. The Final Findings were based on a comprehensive analysis of the data, and the interested parties were given the opportunity to provide comments before the conclusions were drawn.

Ultimately, after careful consideration, the appeals were dismissed as the points raised lacked material evidence and merit. The judgment concluded that there was no valid reason to interfere with the Final Findings, upholding the decision of the DA in the anti-dumping investigation.