2018 (3) TMI 782 - AT - Customs

Imposition of ADD - Ammonium Nitrate - import from Russia, Indonesia, Georgia and Iran and imported into India - Exporter is aggrieved against not fixing individual AD duty for the exports made by them - Held that - there is no grievance or appeal by the Indonesian exporter. The point raised by the Indian importer without having a categorical assertion on the correct factual position of nature of goods manufactured in Indonesia cannot be considered. In any case, we note that the DA categorically recorded that the interested parties themselves have contended that Ammonium Nitrate cannot be imported in melt form. Since, there is production and sale of solid Ammonium Nitrate having density above 0.83 it is inappropriate to consider another article as like article to the imported product under consideration. It is clear that the performance of DI has deteriorated over the injury period as can be seen that imports from subject country have increased not only in absolute terms, but also in relation to production and consumption in India. Such imports under cut prices of DI leading to significant price depression in the market. The DI suffered in terms of market share, inventories, profit, cash profits and return on investment - the conclusion of the DA regarding injury margin and causal link for such injury due to dumped imports cannot be contested either on law or on facts. Since, the ultimate actual exporter of subject goods to India did not file E.Q.R. the producer/exporter had been treated as noncooperative. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging imposition of anti-dumping duty on Ammonium Nitrate originating from certain countries, scope assessment by Designated Authority (DA), injury analysis, exclusion of Indonesia from subject countries, denial of individual dumping margin and duty to the exporter.

Scope Assessment by Designated Authority (DA):
The appeals contested the final findings of the DA regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duty on Ammonium Nitrate originating from specific countries. The DA received an application for investigation and completed the process as per Customs Tariff Rules. The appellants raised concerns about the DA's assessment of the Product Under Consideration (PUC) and Designated Industry (DI). They argued that the DA failed to properly consider Ammonium Nitrate melt as a like article, affecting the injury analysis and dumping investigation. The appellants also disputed the inclusion of Indonesia in the subject countries for anti-dumping levy, citing the lack of production of high-density Ammonium Nitrate in Indonesia.

Injury Analysis and Contradictions:
The appellants challenged the injury analysis conducted by the DA, claiming that the Net Sales Realization (NSR) of the DI was higher than the Non-Injurious Price (NIP). They argued that the DA did not properly analyze the status of the DI and the existence of injury. The DA's findings were compared with earlier judgments, highlighting contradictions in injury assessments. However, the DA defended its findings, stating they were in compliance with Annexure II of Anti-Dumping Rules and supported by legal precedents.

Denial of Individual Dumping Margin and Duty to Exporter:
The Exporter appealed against the DA's decision not to fix individual dumping margin and duty. The Exporter argued that all necessary information was available for individual assessment, and the DA erred in not following proper procedures. The Exporter emphasized the need for individual analysis based on the complete trade chain data. However, the DA justified its stance, citing non-cooperation from the ultimate exporter in providing essential information, leading to the dismissal of the Exporter's appeal.

Decision and Dismissal of Appeals:
After hearing all arguments, the Tribunal upheld the DA's findings and dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal found that the DA's assessment of the PUC and DI was correct, and the injury analysis was in line with legal provisions. The appeals by Indian importers were deemed without merit and dismissed. Additionally, the Exporter's appeal was also dismissed due to the lack of complete data and non-cooperation from the ultimate exporter. Consequently, all appeals against the final findings and Customs notification were rejected, and related applications were disposed of.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues involved, including scope assessment, injury analysis, and denial of individual dumping margin and duty, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Tribunal.