2000 (8) TMI 166 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Anti-dumping duty imposition and review process.
2. Compliance with Customs Tariff Act and Rules.
3. Examination of threat to domestic industry.
4. Applicability of Supreme Court decision.
5. Sunset review and extension of duty.
6. Designated Authority's findings on injury.
7. Adherence to Rules in decision-making.
8. Argument regarding landed value vs. fair selling price.
9. Decision to quash notification discontinuing duty.

Issue 1: Anti-dumping duty imposition and review process
The manufacturers of Iso-Butyl Benzene (IBB) in India applied for an Anti-dumping investigation against imports from China, leading to the imposition of provisional and final duties. A mid-term review was requested, resulting in an enhanced duty being recommended and notified by the Central Government.

Issue 2: Compliance with Customs Tariff Act and Rules
The appeal challenged the withdrawal of Anti-dumping duty on IBB imported from China, arguing that the Designated Authority and the Government did not adequately consider the possibility of dumping recurrence and injury to the domestic industry as required by the Customs Tariff Act and Rules.

Issue 3: Examination of threat to domestic industry
The appellant contended that the Designated Authority failed to assess the threat to the domestic industry upon discontinuation of the Anti-dumping duty, highlighting discrepancies in the final findings regarding injury to the industry from imports of IBB.

Issue 4: Applicability of Supreme Court decision
The Tribunal noted that appeals lie against determinations made by the Central Government, emphasizing the need for a thorough review process and compliance with the Rules, especially in determining injury to the domestic industry.

Issue 5: Sunset review and extension of duty
The Tribunal highlighted the provision allowing the extension of Anti-dumping duty beyond five years if discontinuation may lead to dumping recurrence and injury, pointing out the lack of examination by the Designated Authority and the Central Government in this regard.

Issue 6: Designated Authority's findings on injury
The Designated Authority's final findings did not address the potential injury to the domestic industry upon discontinuation of the duty, focusing only on the period of investigation where minimal imports resulted in no material injury.

Issue 7: Adherence to Rules in decision-making
The Tribunal found that the Designated Authority and the Central Government did not consider the possible injury or threat of injury to the domestic industry as required by the Rules, leading to the quashing of the notification discontinuing the duty.

Issue 8: Argument regarding landed value vs. fair selling price
The argument that the landed value of IBB was higher than the fair selling price due to the Anti-dumping duty was dismissed, as the Designated Authority did not address the potential future injury to the domestic industry upon discontinuation of the duty.

Issue 9: Decision to quash notification discontinuing duty
Based on the lack of examination of potential injury and threat to the domestic industry, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the notification discontinuing the levy of Anti-dumping duty on IBB imported from China.