2017 (3) TMI 489 - AT - Customs

Levy of ADD - vitrified/Porcelain tiles - Import from China - whether the applicant be treated as New Shipper u/r 22 of the AD Rules and are entitled to individual dumping margin? - Held that - the appellant No.1 and 2, who are related producers were not new players in the business but were actually in existence, in different names, earlier. On the spot verification conducted by the DA revealed the said fact. In fact appellant No.2, though declared to have been set up in 2009, was in fact, in existence from 2001. This fact was not disclosed in the declaration filed by the appellant. Similarly, it was also recorded that these Producers have a much wider relationship network than what was declared by them. This puts the whole claim and basis of New Shipper Review under jeopardy - it will not be appropriate to clear the subject goods made by the applicants without payment of AD duty. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Final findings by Designated Authority (DA) under Rule 22 of the Anti-Dumping Rules
- Delay in filing appeals and condonation of delay
- Failure of DA to appreciate relevant submissions and conduct proper investigation
- Legal sustainability of the appeals
- New Shipper Review and individual dumping margin under Rule 22 of AD Rules
- Lack of time schedule for completion of New Shipper Review
- Relationship and commercial transactions of the appellants
- Justification for levy of Anti-Dumping (AD) duty on the appellants
- Dismissal of appeals and related applications

Final Findings by Designated Authority (DA):
The six appeals were challenging the final findings of the Designated Authority (DA) under Rule 22 of the Anti-Dumping Rules regarding the imposition of Anti-Dumping duty on the import of vitrified/Porcelain tiles from China PR. The DA concluded that the applicants were not entitled to individual dumping margin and recommended the levy of AD duty on the subject goods. The Ministry of Finance issued a notification for the final assessment of AD duty based on the DA's findings.

Delay in Filing Appeals and Condonation of Delay:
The appellants sought condonation of delay in filing appeals due to various reasons, including administrative issues and initial filing as a combined appeal. The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay and admitted the appeals for a decision on merit.

Failure of DA to Appreciate Submissions and Conduct Proper Investigation:
The appellants argued that the DA failed to appreciate their submissions and conducted an inadequate investigation, leading to unjustified conclusions on the levy of AD duty. They highlighted delays in completing the investigation and non-adherence to time limits, which they claimed vitiated the final findings of the DA.

Legal Sustainability of the Appeals:
The DA and Revenue contended that the appeals lacked merit and were legally unsustainable. They argued that all required procedures were followed, and there was no statutory time limit for completing the investigation under Rule 22. They emphasized the cooperation issues faced during the investigation process.

New Shipper Review and Individual Dumping Margin:
The appellants sought a New Shipper Review and individual dumping margin under Rule 22 of the AD Rules. The DA examined the status of the appellants and found discrepancies in their declarations, relationships, and commercial transactions, leading to the denial of the New Shipper Review and imposition of AD duty.

Lack of Time Schedule for New Shipper Review:
The Tribunal noted that Rule 22 did not specify a time schedule for completing the New Shipper Review. Despite considerable delays in issuing final findings, the DA provided reasons for the delays, including lack of cooperation from the appellants and procedural issues.

Justification for Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty:
After evaluating the relationship and commercial transactions of the appellants, the DA concluded that it was appropriate to levy AD duty on the subject goods due to discrepancies in declarations and lack of transparency in cooperation. The Tribunal upheld the DA's decision, finding no reason to interfere with the findings.

Dismissal of Appeals and Related Applications:
After considering the grounds of appeal and the DA's findings, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, including the miscellaneous applications and applications for stay. The decision was pronounced on 25.01.2017.