2001 (10) TMI 171 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Dumping of goods produced by M/s. JSC Severstal.
2. Injury to domestic industry.
3. Causal link between injury and dumping.
4. Quantum of duty recommended.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Dumping of Goods Produced by M/s. JSC Severstal:
The appellants contended that there was no dumping of goods produced by M/s. JSC Severstal as the export prices to India were above the Normal Value (Domestic Sale Price) of the said goods in Russia. They argued that the Designated Authority erred in treating them as a non-cooperating exporter without verifying the cost of production in their factory. They also challenged the dumping margin of 113.37% as against 1% in the Preliminary Findings, and suggested using the Normal Value of goods from Kazakhstan.

The Tribunal noted that in Anti-dumping proceedings, it is the responsibility of the exporter to establish that export prices are in line with the Normal Value. Since the appellant did not disclose the cost of production, the Designated Authority justifiably discarded their data and used other information, including data from domestic petitioners, to determine the Normal Value. The Tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's method and findings, rejecting the appellants' arguments.

2. Injury to Domestic Industry:
The appellants argued that there was no material injury to the domestic industry as the export volumes were not significant enough to affect it. They pointed out that import volumes actually decreased during the investigation period and questioned the comparison method of domestic and landed prices.

The Tribunal found that the import of dumped goods had increased significantly, affecting domestic prices and causing substantial injury. The domestic industry's cost of production increased while their price realization fell, leading to increased stocks and financial strain. The Tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's findings on material injury.

3. Causal Link Between Injury and Dumping:
The appellants claimed that the difficulties faced by the domestic industry were due to capacity expansion by M/s. Essar Steel, not competition from dumped imports. They argued that the domestic capacity expansion should not be blamed on foreign suppliers.

The Tribunal agreed with the Designated Authority that the dumped imports caused material injury by setting a low price benchmark, forcing domestic producers to undersell. The Tribunal emphasized that price erosion due to dumped imports led to income erosion for domestic manufacturers, affecting their business viability. The causal link between dumped imports and material injury was clearly established.

4. Quantum of Duty Recommended:
The Tribunal noted that all the conditions for imposing Anti-dumping Duties were met: imports were below Normal Value, the domestic industry suffered material injury, and a causal link existed between the injury and dumped imports. The imposition of Anti-dumping duty was fully justified.

Conclusion:
The appeal was rejected, and the Tribunal upheld the imposition of Anti-dumping duties, affirming the findings and methods of the Designated Authority.