2017 (3) TMI 344 - AT - Customs

Continued imposition of ADD - import of Viscose Staple Fibre excluding bamboo fibre - import from Hongkong - continuation of ADD on the ground that there is likelihood of price under cutting in case of cessation of ADD - Held that - Section 9A (5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides for review of the anti dumping duty imposed - If upon review, if the Government is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, extend the period of such imposition for a further period of 5 years - in the present case, we find the appellant could not place before us any empherical evidence to counter the final findings on Sunset review by the DA. It has been clearly recorded that cessation of existing anti dumping duty on the subject goods is likely to result in recurrence of dumping and injury to the DI - continuation of ADD upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Sunset review of anti-dumping duty on Viscose Staple Fibre excluding bamboo fibre.
2. Allegations of procedural irregularities and lack of evidence by the appellant.
3. Determination of injury to the Domestic Industry.
4. Calculation of return on capital and related disputes.
5. Imposition of anti-dumping duty and legal provisions.

Analysis:

Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The appellant, an exporter of Viscose Staple Fibre, challenged the final findings of the Designated Authority (DA) regarding the continuation of anti-dumping duty on subject goods imported from China PR and Indonesia. The DA concluded that dumped prices of subject goods were causing injury to the Domestic Industry (DI), recommending the continuation of the duty.

Procedural Irregularities and Lack of Evidence:
The appellant raised concerns about procedural fairness during the Sunset review, alleging non-disclosure of crucial data and improper calculation methods by the DA. They argued that the DI did not have sufficient capacity and that the injury to the DI was not adequately substantiated. The appellant requested a fresh investigation adhering to legal provisions.

Injury to the Domestic Industry:
The DA's findings indicated a decline in the DI's performance due to dumped imports, leading to a recommendation for the continuation of anti-dumping duty to prevent further harm. The appellant contested this conclusion, claiming a lack of evidence establishing a causal link between imports and injury to the DI.

Return on Capital Disputes:
Disagreements arose over the DA's fixed return on capital of 22%, with the appellant arguing for a higher rate due to specific circumstances. However, the DA's consistent policy and previous Tribunal decisions supported the 22% rate, as the appellant failed to provide contrary evidence justifying a different rate.

Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty and Legal Provisions:
The Tribunal highlighted the purpose of anti-dumping duty as a trade remedy to counter dumping practices, authorized under WTO agreements. Citing Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, the Tribunal emphasized the need for empirical evidence to challenge the DA's findings. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the continuation of anti-dumping duty based on the DA's thorough review and economic considerations, dismissing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments to interfere with the DA's final findings or the imposition of anti-dumping duty. The decision was based on legal provisions and the lack of compelling evidence presented by the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.