2016 (11) TMI 87 - AT - Customs

Quantification of ADD - Gypsemna - import from UAE - N/N. 6/2013-Cus. ADD dated 12.4.2013 - improper construction of normal value for Gypsemna in UAE - Held that - no substantive documentary evidence has been furnished by the DI regarding dual pricing or favoured pricing in the supply of gas to the producer exporter. While arriving at the normal value for Gypsemna in respect of subject goods the DA had considered the objection of DI and after due verification of the project report etc. arrived at the value. We note that while constructing cost for the said producer exporter the DA has considered the standard accounting norms. The DA has noted that Gypsemna have sold the subject goods to independent entities as well as to a related company. The sales of subject goods to the related company have been noted to be in the ordinary course of trading and have been accepted by the authority for determination of normal value - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Final Findings of the Designated Authority regarding imposition of Anti-Dumping duty on plain gypsum boards originating from certain countries.

Analysis:
1. Initiation of Investigation: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing plain gypsum boards, approached the Designated Authority (DA) for imposing Anti-Dumping (AD) duty on imported subject goods. The DA initiated an investigation covering the period from 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010 and recommended AD duty on subject goods from China PR, Indonesia, Thailand, and UAE.

2. Quantification of AD Duty: The appellant disputed the quantification of AD duty concerning Gypsemna, a producer exporter from UAE. They argued that the DA should have rejected the cost of exporters from Saudi Arabia and UAE due to specific market conditions, especially the controlled pricing of gas by the government in those countries. The appellant contended that the normal value for subject goods produced by Gypsemna was inaccurately determined by the DA.

3. Submissions and Defense: The DA defended its findings stating that the controlled pricing of gas in UAE was not substantiated with evidence. They mentioned that the cost allocation for subject goods produced by Gypsemna was appropriately done, considering only interest, depreciation, and the time taken to reach full capacity. Gypsemna's counsel supported the DA's determination of normal value and costing for the subject goods.

4. Judgment: Upon hearing all parties, the Tribunal found that the appellant supported the imposition of AD duty but contested the quantification for a specific producer exporter. The Tribunal noted the lack of substantial evidence regarding dual pricing or favored pricing in gas supply to Gypsemna. The DA's construction of the normal value for Gypsemna was deemed appropriate, considering standard accounting norms and sales to related entities. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and upheld the DA's findings, rejecting the appeal.

The judgment, pronounced on 09.09.2016, upheld the imposition of Anti-Dumping duty on plain gypsum boards from certain countries, dismissing the appellant's challenge to the quantification of duty for a specific producer exporter.