2001 (2) TMI 154 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition and review of Anti-dumping duty on imports of acrylic fibre.
2. Justification for rejecting data provided by the appellant.
3. Variation in the period of investigation.
4. Determination of normal value and cost of production.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition and review of Anti-dumping duty on imports of acrylic fibre:
The Acrylic Fibre Manufacturers requested the Designated Authority to impose Anti-dumping duty on imports of acrylic fibre from Thailand, Korea, and the USA. The Designated Authority initiated the investigation and recommended the imposition of Anti-dumping duty, which was accepted by the Finance Ministry. Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. requested a review of the Anti-dumping duty, leading to subsequent investigations and adjustments in the duty imposed. The final duty imposed on Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. was Rs. 9.14 per Kg, which they challenged.

2. Justification for rejecting data provided by the appellant:
The appellant contended that the Designated Authority did not provide reasons for ignoring the data they submitted. The Designated Authority issued a disclosure statement before the final finding, but the data in this statement was ignored in determining the cost of production. The appellant argued that this rejection of data without proper reasons violated the principles of natural justice. The Designated Authority should have communicated the reasons for rejecting the data and should not have adopted materials not put to the appellant.

3. Variation in the period of investigation:
The Designated Authority initially fixed the period of investigation from 1st April 1998 to 31st March 1999. However, during the investigation, the Authority considered data from 1st January 1998 to 31st March 1998 and ignored data from 1st January 1999 to 31st March 1999. This variation in the period of investigation was contested by the appellant, arguing that it led to erroneous conclusions due to significant differences in raw material costs and exchange rates during these periods.

4. Determination of normal value and cost of production:
The Designated Authority excluded certain domestic sales while determining the normal value, considering them below the weighted average cost of production. The Tribunal examined Clause (2) of Annexure I to the Rules, which governs the determination of normal value. It was found that the Designated Authority erred in rejecting sales below the weighted average unit cost of production. The correct interpretation is that only sales below the per unit cost of production should be excluded, subject to conditions such as the sales being in substantial quantities and not allowing for cost recovery within a reasonable period.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the Designated Authority wrongly varied the period of investigation and misinterpreted Clause (2) of Annexure I. The correct Anti-dumping duty was recalculated and imposed as follows: 0.296 US$ per Kg for all exporters from the USA, 0.534 US$ per Kg for all exporters from Korea R.P., 0.180 US$ per Kg for Thai Acrylic Fibre Co., and 0.784 US$ per Kg for all other exporters from Thailand. The appeal was disposed of by modifying the notification issued by the Government of India accordingly.