2018 (2) TMI 1576 - AT - Customs

ADD - import of Para Nitro Aniline (PNA) originating in and exported from China PR - N/N. 88/2011-CUS dated 09/09/2011 - Sunset Review - Held that - the confidential version of final finding which contained all the crucial data was perused by us during the course of hearing - It is clear that the data relevant in para 38, 68, 77 and 78 of the final finding were duly examined by the DA. In fact, on close perusal of such data, we have no reason to differ from the findings as recorded by the DA. PNA produced by Suzhou Luosen Auxiliary Companies Ltd. and exported by Wujiang City Yilin Foreign Trading Co. Ltd. was originally subjected to the lowest of AD duty on conclusion of the original investigation. During sunset review the DA examined various parameters in order to determine the possible recurrence or continuation of likelihood of dumped and injury in case of non-continuation of AD duty already imposed - The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that all the 4 parameters are to be examined and findings to be recorded in terms of Annexure II of the AD Rules. We note that the DA did take into account these parameters as listed in para 73 of the final finding. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Sunset review of anti-dumping duty on import of Para Nitro Aniline (PNA) from China.
2. Non-imposition of anti-dumping duty on specific producer/exporter in the sunset review.
3. Appeal against common impugned findings and customs notification.
4. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a sunset review conducted by the Designated Authority (DA) regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the import of Para Nitro Aniline (PNA) from China. The final findings and customs notification were issued based on this review, recommending varying anti-dumping duties for different combinations of producer/exporter from China. The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of subject goods in India, challenged the non-imposition of anti-dumping duty on a specific producer/exporter in China.

2. The appellants contended that the DA's findings were incorrect and should have considered the country as a whole rather than individual exporters. They argued that various parameters indicating the likelihood of dumping and injury were not adequately examined, such as dumped import increase, price reductions, market attractiveness to foreign exporters, and price undercutting. They also highlighted instances where AD duty continued even with negative dumping and injury margin, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive analysis.

3. The appellants further argued that the DA should not have made company-specific recommendations in the sunset review, citing a WTO decision and the requirement to consider all relevant parameters for the analysis. They emphasized the need for a holistic examination of factors influencing the likelihood of dumping and injury, including market conditions, inventory levels, and price trends. The DA, supported by the Revenue Authority, defended their detailed analysis and the customs notification issued post-sunset review.

4. The Tribunal examined the legal provisions governing sunset reviews and determined that the DA's analysis was thorough and compliant with the required parameters. They upheld the DA's findings, noting that the data examined supported the conclusion that there was no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury in the case of the specific producer/exporter in question. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, concluding that the findings were well-founded and did not warrant interference.