2018 (2) TMI 1422 - AT - Customs

N/N. 53/2016-Customs (ADD) dated 25/11/2016 - ADD on low ash metallurgical coke originating in or exported from PR China and Australia - Held that - It appears that the said notification has already been assailed by the other parties in the case, M/s Kalyani Steels Limited and M/s Association of India Mini Blast Furnaces, 2017 (4) TMI 545 - CESTAT NEW DELHI on identical grounds, before the Tribunal, where it was held that The import from subject countries has increased significantly and the market share of domestic sales has actually come down, in spite of increase in total demand. The magnitude of dumping has been examined by the DA. On the causal link, the point raised by the appellant, like high inland freight cost and poor performance of DI due to other factors, due consideration was given by the DA in his investigation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues involved:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. Challenge to Customs Notification No.53/2016-Customs (ADD) imposing antidumping duty on low ash metallurgical coke.
3. Scope of subject goods and exclusion criteria.
4. Determination of injury to the domestic industry due to import of subject goods.
5. Consideration of captive consumption producers in the investigation.
6. Relevance of WTO decisions in the case.
7. Causal link between injury to domestic industry and import of subject goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought restoration of their appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, which was accepted by the Tribunal. The appeal contested Customs Notification No.53/2016 imposing antidumping duty on low ash metallurgical coke from PR China and Australia. The appellant had initially challenged the notification in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, which directed them to approach the CESTAT. The Tribunal noted that other parties had also challenged the same notification before the Tribunal, while the appellant was before the High Court. No new grounds were presented in the appeal.

2. The Tribunal examined the scope of subject goods and the exclusion criteria. The appellant argued that metallurgical coke with ash content above 15% and below 12.5% should have been excluded. However, the Tribunal found the findings of the Designated Authority (DA) to be well-supported by documentary evidence, indicating no fault in the DA's conclusions on the subject goods.

3. The issue of injury to the domestic industry due to the import of subject goods was thoroughly analyzed. The Tribunal agreed with the DA's detailed analysis, which showed a significant increase in imports from subject countries, leading to injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal found a causal link between the increased imports and the injury suffered by the domestic industry, supporting the imposition of antidumping duty.

4. The consideration of captive consumption producers in the investigation was also addressed. The DA had excluded captive producers from the investigation, citing differences in economics and competition with imported goods. The Tribunal found no fault in the DA's decision and agreed with the exclusion of captive producers from the scope of the investigation.

5. The Tribunal examined the relevance of WTO decisions cited by the appellant, finding them unrelated to the present case. The Tribunal agreed with the DA's determination of the scope of the domestic industry in the investigation, finding no infirmity in the conclusions drawn.

6. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following its earlier orders and the detailed examination of the issues presented. The order was passed after considering all submissions and documentary evidence, upholding the findings of the DA regarding the scope of subject goods and the injury to the domestic industry caused by the import of subject goods.

Overall, the Tribunal's decision upheld the imposition of antidumping duty based on the findings of the DA and the detailed analysis of the issues involved in the case.

← Previous Next →