9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 225 - AT - CustomsLevy of anti-dumping duty - Plain Gypsum board - exported from China PR, Indonesia, Thailand and UAE - Notification No.6/2013-Cus. ADD dated 12.4.2013 - Held that - the DA has examined this issue and discussed in the Finding. In para 14(v) the DA examined the various like articles individually and gave a finding for each one. He excluded fire boards, fire heat boards, impact boards, ceiling boards, ECHO boards, heat boards, anti-mold/weather boards, thermal boards, ceiling tiles from the purview of consideration. The investigation was done only for plain gypsum boards of all thickness. Regarding lack of causal link between the dumping and injury to DI - The market share of dumped imports in total demand has increased significantly. The dumped imports were undercutting the price of the DI in the market. There is a clear finding on price undercutting and price suppression/depression. Regarding the excess capacity available with the DI - Held that - Annexure-II to AD Rules requires that the determination of injury shall involve an objective examination of impact of imports on DI - The losses of DI increased during POI, the volume of imports increased - Appeal rejected.
Issues:
Contestation of Anti-Dumping duty imposition on plain gypsum board imports from specific countries. Analysis: The appeal challenged the imposition of Anti-Dumping duty on plain gypsum board imports from China PR, Indonesia, Thailand, and UAE. The Designated Authority (DA) initiated the investigation based on a request from a domestic industry representative. The Period of Investigation (POI) was from 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2010. The DA recommended the imposition of Anti-Dumping duty on the subject goods, leading to Notification No.6/2013-Cus ADD dated 12.4.2013. The appellant contested the duty imposition on various grounds, including the exclusion of specialty products from consideration, lack of causal link between imports and injury to the domestic industry, and the argument that price undercutting and dumping margins do not necessarily indicate injury. The respondent, M/s Boral Gypsum India Pvt. Ltd., supported the appellant's plea against the Anti-Dumping duty. The DA, represented by the counsel, defended its findings, stating that excess capacity in the domestic industry was not significant and that the non-attribution analysis of inter-se competition within the industry was not substantial in this case. The DA emphasized the causal link between dumping and injury to the domestic industry, asserting that Anti-Dumping duty could be recommended even if dumping was only one of the reasons for the industry's injury. The Revenue's counsel supported the impugned customs notification, citing Rule 11(2) of Anti-Dumping Rules and Annexure-II, highlighting that all relevant factors were considered before recommending the Anti-Dumping duty. The Tribunal analyzed the issues raised in the appeal. Firstly, regarding the consideration of products for investigation, the DA excluded various specialty products and focused solely on plain gypsum boards of all thicknesses. The Tribunal found the DA's analysis rational and dismissed the plea against the findings on this ground. Secondly, concerning the causal link between dumping and injury to the domestic industry, the Tribunal noted a significant increase in the value of dumped imports from the subject countries, leading to price undercutting and suppression. Despite the excess capacity within the domestic industry, the Tribunal concluded that the injury analysis was well-founded, considering various economic factors. The Tribunal upheld the findings of the DA, rejecting the appeal and disposing of related applications. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of Anti-Dumping duty on plain gypsum board imports from specific countries, citing the dumping of subject goods below associated normal values as leading to material injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal found no merit in the appeal's objections, affirming the DA's findings and decision to impose the duty. The appeal was rejected, and associated applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
