2018 (3) TMI 1394 - AT - Customs

Anti Dumping Duty - quantification of duty - colour coated/pre-painted flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel - import from China PR and EU - Held that - when there is an available admitted transfer price as a market price, there is no reason for the DA not to consider the same. In fact, JSCPL is a separate legal entity though a subsidiary of JSW. The actual purchase cost (market price) of the raw material, as per the books of accounts maintained by the appellant, were considered for calculating NIP. We also note that in terms of para (iii) of Annexure III of AD Rules, the data of the Domestic Industry is to be used to calculate NIP - The contention that the cost of production of JSW for manufacture of HR coil to calculate NIP for JSCPL is not in line with requirements of Annexure III to AD rules. JSW is not a part of DI in the present case. There is no mandate either in terms of WTO agreement or AD rules for the DA to recommend AD duty in a particular form. The DA will consider the facts and circumstances of each case during the course of investigation and recommend the AD duty accordingly. This can be based on reference price or fixed duty or ad-valorem - fixing AD duty based on reference landed value is one of the accepted method which has been followed in the past including for various steel products produced by the same appellants. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the final finding of the Designated Authority imposing Anti Dumping duty on color coated/pre-painted flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel
- Dispute over the fixation of non-injurious price for domestic manufacturers
- Grievance regarding the quantification and method of determining the Anti Dumping duty on the subject goods

Analysis:
1. The appellants contested the final finding of the Designated Authority imposing Anti Dumping duty on color coated/pre-painted flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel. They supported the imposition of the duty but disputed the quantification of such duty.

2. The appellants raised two main grievances regarding the fixation of non-injurious price (NIP) for domestic manufacturers. They argued that the DA did not properly calculate the return on capital employed for one of the manufacturers and made exclusions without proper authority. The appellants also highlighted that accounting standards were not followed for arriving at NIP.

3. The appellants also disputed the method of determining the Anti Dumping duty on the subject goods. They argued that the duty should have been fixed on absolute terms without any reference value. The appellants pointed out that certain factors affecting their business were not adequately considered in the DA's analysis.

4. The DA defended its findings, stating that the pricing methodology followed was consistent with previous cases. The DA emphasized that the method used for calculating NIP and AD duty was appropriate based on market prices and previous practices.

5. The Tribunal noted that the DA had followed a similar basis for adopting transfer price in a previous case involving the appellants. The Tribunal found no reason to contest the use of transfer price as a market price for raw materials. It was also clarified that the cost of production of a separate legal entity could not be used to calculate NIP for another entity.

6. Regarding the appeal by another party, the Tribunal observed that the methodology followed by the DA for determining capital employed was consistent with a previous investigation. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's arguments related to abnormal expenses and other financial factors.

7. The Tribunal upheld the fixation of Anti Dumping duty linked to a reference landed value of the subject goods, stating that there was no mandate for a specific form of duty recommendation. The Tribunal noted that such a method had been accepted in previous cases involving similar steel products.

8. After thorough analysis, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them. The miscellaneous applications filed were accepted and incorporated. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 27/03/2018.