2017 (11) TMI 1191 - AT - Customs

ADD - fixation of separate rate of AD duty - Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB) - import from China PR, Iran and Qatar - The main thrust of the argument by these appellants is that the DA did not obtain complete details of full value chain in transactions. The investigation is not proper as individual dumping margin could not have been arrived at in the absence of full transaction details and consequently the weighted average could not be arrived at properly. Held that - where the trader/exporter fails to provide requisite sales information and if the sales by such trader/exporter is insignificant when compared to cooperative exporting/trading channels, then the DA can recommend individual duty rate for the participating trading channels which comprise the bulk of sales to India. We note in a situation where a producer sold the goods through multiple trading channel and one or more trading channel did not participate in the investigation, the DA can proceed to determine the need for fixing individual anti dumping rates based on the data provided by cooperating trading channels. We note such practice has indeed been followed regularly by the DA in various investigations - appeal dismissed. Regarding delay in initiation of investigation it is clear that the DA found it appropriate to call for updated information from the petitioners for the period of investigation chosen for the case and thereafter issued the questionnaire with updated data. Sufficient time of 40 days was given to all the interested parties to filed questionnaire response and to provide other information to defend their interest. It is clear that the DA ensured that all interested parties get adequate opportunity to defend their interest. The DA is required to examine injury in both the parameters of volume and price. It is clearly recorded that all parameters of injury need not show deterioration. It is the cumulative assessment of effect of such imports which is appropriate to determine the injury. In this regard both volume effect and price effect of imports have been dealt with elaborately by the DA - The volume and price of imports from third countries, developments in technology, export performance of the DI and productivity of the DI has been examined by the DA. It is apparent that decline in profits, cash profits and return on capital employed for the DI, is so high that the said decline cannot be attributed to decline in productivity. As such, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant in this regard. Regarding difference in molecular weight between the imported and domestic LAB, it is recorded that the difference in weight of molecular is a result of difference in raw materials or processes. Apparently this has no impact on injury analysis. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Fixation of separate rates of Anti Dumping (AD) duty for specific exporters.
2. Scope and recognition of Domestic Industry (DI).
3. Allegations of procedural lapses and violation of natural justice.
4. Determination of injury to the domestic industry.
5. Differences in molecular constitution of imported and domestic Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Fixation of Separate Rates of AD Duty for Specific Exporters:
The appellants contested the fixation of separate rates of AD duty for LAB produced by M/s SEEF Ltd., Qatar, and exported by M/s QCPMD (Muntajat), Qatar, and M/s Renish Petrochem, FZE. They argued that the Designated Authority (DA) should have categorized these exporters under the residual category due to incomplete details of the full value chain in transactions. The DA, however, examined the questionnaire responses from these exporters and concluded that they were cooperative, while M/s West Ford, a non-cooperative exporter, was treated under the residual category. The tribunal found no merit in the appellants' contentions and upheld the DA's recommendations, noting that the DA followed standard statutory provisions and correctly analyzed the data provided.

2. Scope and Recognition of Domestic Industry (DI):
The Detergent Manufacturers Association of India argued that the scope of DI was not properly recognized and that M/s Reliance, which entered the picture later, should not have been considered part of DI. The tribunal referred to Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules, which defines domestic industry, and found that the DA had correctly considered the applicants who accounted for a major proportion of production. The tribunal found no infirmity in the DA's determination of DI, as it met the standing and requirements as per the rules.

3. Allegations of Procedural Lapses and Violation of Natural Justice:
The appellants alleged that there were procedural lapses, such as selective post-disclosure hearings and insufficient time for defense after the disclosure statement. The tribunal noted that the DA conducted two public hearings and provided sufficient time for interested parties to file objections. The DA followed standard procedures, including making a disclosure statement and considering comments from interested parties. The tribunal found no violation of natural justice in the DA's proceedings.

4. Determination of Injury to the Domestic Industry:
The Detergent Manufacturers Association of India contended that there was no material injury to the domestic manufacturers of LAB and that other factors, such as different molecular constitution, caused injury. The tribunal examined the DA's findings, which included a detailed analysis of volume and price effects of imports, and concluded that the decline in profits and return on capital employed for the DI could not be attributed to factors other than imports. The tribunal upheld the DA's determination of injury to the domestic industry.

5. Differences in Molecular Constitution of Imported and Domestic LAB:
The appellants argued that the imported LAB had a different molecular constitution and should not have been subjected to AD duty. The tribunal noted that the DA had examined this aspect and found that the difference in molecular weight was due to differences in raw materials or processes, which did not impact the injury analysis. The tribunal found no merit in this contention.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed all the appeals, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants. The DA's recommendations for imposing AD duty, recognizing the scope of DI, and determining injury to the domestic industry were upheld. The connected stay application was also disposed of.