9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of anti-dumping duty on Nylon Tyre Cord Fabric (NTCF) originating from China PR. 2. Validity of the investigation process and procedural fairness. 3. Determination of market economy status for Chinese exporters. 4. Calculation of normal value and dumping margin. 5. Determination of injury to the domestic industry. 6. Causal link between dumped imports and injury. 7. Retrospective application of anti-dumping duty. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty: The appellants challenged the final findings recommending anti-dumping duty and the notification imposing it on NTCF from China PR. The domestic industry also appealed, contending the duty rate was lower than the provisional rate. 2. Validity of the Investigation Process and Procedural Fairness: The appellants argued that a fresh hearing was required after the designated authority changed. The Tribunal held that the designated authority's function was investigatory, not adjudicatory, and no personal hearing was mandated by the rules. The Tribunal found no prejudice to the appellants, as all oral information was reduced to writing and considered. 3. Determination of Market Economy Status: The appellants contended they should be treated as a market economy. The designated authority examined the criteria under Paragraph 8(3) of Annexure I and found significant State interference through Township and Village Enterprises (TVEs) owning shares in the appellant company. The Tribunal upheld the rejection of market economy status, noting the appellants failed to demonstrate the absence of State interference. 4. Calculation of Normal Value and Dumping Margin: The appellants argued that a third market economy country should have been selected for determining the normal value. The Tribunal held that the designated authority was justified in considering the cost of production in India, duly adjusted, as no third market economy country was suggested by the interested parties. The normal value was determined on a reasonable basis. 5. Determination of Injury to the Domestic Industry: The designated authority analyzed the injury in the context of Rule 11 and Annexure II, considering factors like import volumes, price undercutting, and decline in sales realization. The Tribunal agreed with the findings that the domestic industry suffered material injury due to dumped imports from China. 6. Causal Link Between Dumped Imports and Injury: The designated authority found a significant increase in the volume of dumped imports coincided with the deterioration of the domestic industry's economic situation. The Tribunal upheld the finding of a causal link between dumped imports and injury. 7. Retrospective Application of Anti-Dumping Duty: The appellants argued against the retrospective application of anti-dumping duty during the interregnum period. The Tribunal held that Rule 20(2)(a) allowed retrospective effect from the date of provisional duty imposition, and there was no hiatus in the retrospectivity of the duty. Final Order: The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals, upholding the final findings and the notification imposing anti-dumping duty on NTCF from China PR. The appeal by the domestic industry for a higher duty rate was also dismissed.
|
