2016 (12) TMI 824 - AT - Customs

Imposition of ADD - import of Tetrafluoroethane - import from China PR - Notification dated 30/05/16 - Held that - Sinochem Ningbo belongs to Sino group. We note that the assertion made by the first appellant that Sinochem Ningbo was no longer part of Sino group has also been dealt with by the DA. The DA noted that any development post POI cannot be considered and further there is no documentary evidence in support of whatever development claimed by the first appellant. We have noted that in the written submission made by the first appellant before the DA it was submitted that Sinochem Taichang and Sinochem Ningbo as, two formerly related companies in the 300 subsidiaries, have no transaction between each other and it is impossible for Sinochem Taichang to know about operation of all its related companies. We further note that in a report dated 28/10/2005 of World Trade Organization, it was recorded that a single dumping margin only will be applicable when companies in the same group were involved in trading as well as exporting. Incorrect determination of non-injurious price - Held that - The return on investment has been fixed as per the standard practice in terms of agreed norms and in the absence of commodity or industry specific recorded evidence to show different percentage of such return we find no reason to interfere in such finding. The volume effect as well as price effect of dumped imports with reference to price under cutting/under selling and price suppression and depression have been examined in detail by the DA. It was also noted that inventory levels of the domestic industries increased over the injury period. The DA concluded that the dumping margin of imports from China is substantial. The appellants pleaded that there is no proper analysis of likelihood of continuation or recurring of dumping and injury caused by such dumping in the review done by the DA. We have noted that despite imposition of anti dumping duties there is continuous dumping of the subject goods from China causing continued injury to the domestic industry which apparently indicates likelihood of continued or intensified dumping of subject goods causing injury to the domestic industry. The DA has noted that in case of termination of anti dumping duty the dumping may intensify causing injury to the domestic industry. The appellants have not made out any case with supporting evidence to persuade us to interfere with the findings of the DA and consequent customs notification imposing the anti dumping on the subject goods imported from China. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against Notification imposing Anti Dumping duty on import of Tetrafluoroethane from China PR.

Analysis:
1. The main grievances of the appellants included the lack of proper analysis by the Designated Authority (DA) on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, failure to grant individual dumping margin, and insufficient grounds for concluding the causal effect between alleged dumping, injury to the domestic industry, and imports from China.

2. The domestic importer contended that the import data relied upon by the DA was incorrect, and other factors causing injury to the domestic industry were not adequately examined.

3. The appellants argued for setting aside the notification for the continued imposition of Anti Dumping duty, while the domestic industry opposed, citing significant import volume from China despite the duty, fair analysis of dumping margin, and the reasonableness of the return on investment fixed by the DA.

4. The DA defended its findings, emphasizing continued imports, injury to the domestic industry, and the consistent use of a 22% return on investment.

5. The Tribunal carefully reviewed the DA's final findings, addressing the appellants' concerns regarding individual dumping margin, incorrect determination of non-injurious price, methodology for injury determination, and causal link between imports and injury to the domestic industry.

6. The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to provide supporting evidence to challenge the DA's findings, including the likelihood of continued dumping and injury to the domestic industry, leading to the dismissal of the appeals and the miscellaneous application for stay.

Conclusion:
After thorough analysis of the grounds raised by the appellants and the review findings of the Designated Authority, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and upheld the customs notification imposing Anti Dumping duty on the subject goods imported from China. The appeals were dismissed, and the miscellaneous application for stay was disposed of.