9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (3) TMI 143 - SC - CustomsWhether there was justification for continued imposition of anti-dumping duty? - Held that - The Designated Authority in the Mid Term Review has reduced the anti-dumping duty from US dollar 264 per MT to US dollar 248 per MT. This again shows that all the relevant material facts had been taken into consideration by the Designated Authority while analyzing the injury caused to the domestic industry.It would be pertinent to point out, that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Designated Authority had imposed duty in dollar terms and in the appeal before the Tribunal or this Court, the appellant has not challenged this part of the order of the Designated Authority. Hence, the same is confirmed. Thus appeal dismissed. Continuation of anti-dumping duty after the expiry of five years for a further period of five years - Held that - The only challenge put forth in the instant appeals is to the non-evaluation of all the parameters listed in para (iv) of Annexure-II. This contention had not been urged either before the Designated Authority or the Tribunal and, therefore, cannot be permitted to be urged for the first time in these appeals. Further, the records produced before us unambiguously shows that all the relevant parameters had been considered. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty 2. Mid-Term Review of Anti-Dumping Duty 3. Continuation of Anti-Dumping Duty in Sunset Review Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty: The appeal in Civil Appeal No. 773 of 2001 was directed against the Tribunal's final order upholding the Designated Authority's recommendation for imposing anti-dumping duty on Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) imported from Korea and Germany. The Designated Authority determined that the imports were below normal value, causing material injury to the domestic industry. The Tribunal confirmed this finding, rejecting the appellant's arguments on injury, causal link, and cumulation of imports. The Tribunal, however, converted the anti-dumping duty from rupee terms to US dollar terms without any appeal or cross-appeal, which was conceded as an error by the Union of India and corrected by the Supreme Court. The appellant's argument regarding the violation of para (iv) of Annexure II of the Rules was not entertained as it was not raised before the Tribunal. 2. Mid-Term Review of Anti-Dumping Duty: In Civil Appeal Nos. 1703 of 2006, the issue was the imposition of anti-dumping duty based on a Mid-Term Review under Rule 23. The Designated Authority had considered the appellant a non-cooperative exporter and determined the normal value of NBR on a "facts available basis." The Tribunal upheld this finding. The appellant contended that the Designated Authority must evaluate all 14 parameters listed in para (iv) of Annexure-II. The Supreme Court found that the Designated Authority had considered all relevant factors and that the review inquiry was limited to determining if there was justification for the continued imposition of the duty. The Designated Authority had reduced the anti-dumping duty from US dollar 264 per MT to US dollar 248 per MT, indicating a thorough analysis. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, confirming the duty in dollar terms. 3. Continuation of Anti-Dumping Duty in Sunset Review: In Civil Appeal Nos. 7159-7161 and 7162 of 2004, the issue was the continuation of anti-dumping duty after five years. Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act empowers the Central Government to extend the duty for another five years if cessation would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The Designated Authority conducted a sunset review and concluded that the duty should continue. The Tribunal upheld this finding. The appellant's challenge regarding the non-evaluation of all parameters listed in para (iv) of Annexure-II was not entertained as it was not raised before the Designated Authority or the Tribunal. The Supreme Court found that all relevant parameters had been considered and dismissed the appeals. In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the imposition, mid-term review, and continuation of anti-dumping duties, emphasizing the thorough evaluation of relevant economic factors by the Designated Authority. The appeals were dismissed with costs in favor of the Union of India.
|
