2016 (11) TMI 132 - AT - Customs

Sunset review - Notification No. 35/2014 - CUS (ADD) dated 24/7/2014 - there are six rubber chemicals which are subjected to AD duties - When there was an investigation and imposition of safeguard duty on one of the subject goods then provisions of para (v) of Annexure II of AD Rules should been carefully examined and applied by the DA - Held that - there is no legal bar to have both AD duty and safeguard duty on a particular product at the same time. The only bar is that the DI should not be granted dual protection for the same injury. The AD duty imposed clearly stated that the quantum of AD duty shall be reduced from quantum of SG duty and only the difference shall be charged as SG duty - DA has recorded that the growth of the domestic industry in terms of sales, production and capacity utilization was positive whereas growth in respect of profits, return on investment, cash profits and inventories was negative - the subject countries have surplus disposable capacities for production of subject goods and in the event of withdrawal of AD duties there is likelihood of the surplus capacities being utilized to enhance exports at dumped prices. AD duty imposed therein is to be effective for a period of five years from that date. We find that the original notification extension and the impugned notifications are issued in exercise of specific powers vested under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act readwith AD Rules 18 and 23 - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against the continued imposition of anti-dumping duties on rubber chemicals after a sunset review by the Designated Authority.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, representing Indian users, challenged the continued imposition of anti-dumping duties (AD duties) on certain rubber chemicals originating from China PR and Korea RP. The appeal was against the Final Findings of the Designated Authority (DA) and the Notification imposing AD duty. The appellant contended that the principle of non-attribution and material injury analysis were not compliant with the AD Rules. They argued that there was no causal link between profit decline and imports from China PR. Additionally, they claimed that the Customs Notification was inconsistent with the Customs Tariff Act, leading to an unjustified imposition of AD duty for a prolonged period.

2. The Counsel for the Designated Authority (DA) refuted the appellant's contentions, stating that the safeguard duty and AD duty have distinct scopes and applications. The DA considered all factors in analyzing dumping and injury to the domestic industry. The DA and Revenue representatives supported the Final Findings and the continued imposition of AD duty, emphasizing the relevant factors discussed in the findings.

3. The Tribunal carefully examined the appeal papers, written submissions, and arguments from all parties. The challenge against the continued imposition of AD duties on rubber chemicals after the sunset review was thoroughly assessed. The appellant's arguments regarding the application of Annexure II of AD Rules, the material injury analysis, and the causal link between imports and profit decline were analyzed.

4. The Tribunal noted that the DA had conducted a detailed analysis of the injury to the domestic industry concerning each rubber chemical. Specifically, imports of certain chemicals undercut domestic prices, leading to a decline in profitability and return on investment for the domestic industry. The surplus capacities of subject countries could potentially lead to increased exports at dumped prices if AD duties were withdrawn.

5. After examining all points raised in the appeal, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal upheld the imposition of AD duties based on the DA's findings and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the extension of AD duties through notifications was legally sound and within the powers vested under the Customs Tariff Act and AD Rules.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the continued imposition of anti-dumping duties on rubber chemicals based on the Designated Authority's findings and legal provisions, dismissing the appellant's challenge against the imposition of AD duties after a sunset review.