2016 (11) TMI 34 - AT - Customs

Quantification of rate of ADD - Plain Medium Density Fibre Board - imported from China PR, Malaysia, New Zealand, Thailand and Sri Lanka - N/N. 116/2009-Cus ADD dated 08.10.2009 - advertising expenses - Held that - Regarding non-inclusion of advertising expenses for NIP calculation, we find that the claim of the appellant is incorrect. We have perused the confidential calculation of non-injurious price submitted by the counsel for the DA. We note that under the Administrative heads, advertising and sales promotion expenses have been fully allowed as claimed by the appellant. On this, we find no merit in the argument of the appellant. Bonafidiness of accounting followed by Merbok - Held that - we find that the DA has verified the data submitted and had discussions on various points before arriving at his conclusion. Spot verification is not always required. Area based exemption - Held that - the DA has to consider the material facts relevant to the period. The future possibility of continuing exemption or termination of such exemption cannot be predicted and factored into while arriving at the findings on material injury for DI. The relevant facts available in record have been examined to draw conclusion. Appeal rejected - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging quantification of rate of anti-dumping duty, Delay in filing appeal, Consideration of advertising expenses in NIP calculation, Treatment of data related to Merbok, Sri Lanka Ltd, Area-based exemption in injury margin calculation.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI challenged the final findings on the imposition of anti-dumping (AD) duty on imports of Plain Medium Density Fibre Board. The appellant, a domestic manufacturer of the subject goods, supported the imposition of AD duty but contested the quantification of the duty rate. The Tribunal noted a delay of 287 days in filing the appeal, with the appellant seeking condonation of the delay. The appellant's counsel argued that the AD duty was imposed for a period of 5 years, and a sunset review investigation led to the issuance of a Customs Notification imposing AD duty for another 5 years. The delay in filing the appeal was attributed to various factors, including legal opinion sought on the proceedings and preparation of the appeal. Both the DA and Revenue opposed condonation of the delay, citing lack of bonafide grounds. However, the Tribunal, considering the larger issue of merit, decided to condone the delay as a special case for a decision on merit.

On the merits of the case, the appellant raised three main points. Firstly, they argued that advertising expenses of the DA were not considered in calculating the Normal Value (NIP), impacting the injury margin and AD duty. Secondly, issues related to Merbok, Sri Lanka Ltd were contested, alleging improper treatment of data and acceptance of claims without due verification. Lastly, the appellant questioned the inclusion of area-based exemption in injury margin calculation, stating it was temporary and should not be considered. The DA, represented by its counsel, defended its calculations and verification processes, asserting the correctness of their findings. The Revenue supported the DA's findings and Customs Notification.

After examining all arguments and submissions, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's contentions. They concluded that advertising expenses were indeed considered in the NIP calculation, data related to Merbok was properly verified, and the area-based exemption was appropriately factored into the injury margin analysis. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the issues raised did not warrant interference with the impugned findings. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 15.09.2016.