1999 (12) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the Designated Authority's determination.
2. Method of fixing the normal value of catalysts.
3. Proper determination of injury margin.
4. Imposition of different anti-dumping margins based on end-use.
5. Jurisdiction and powers of the Tribunal regarding remand.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the Designated Authority's Determination:
The appellant argued that the Designated Authority should have determined whether the catalysts were being dumped in India within one year from the initiation of the investigation, as mandated by Rule 17 of the Customs Tariff Rules. The investigation began on 6-9-1996, and the final order was issued on 5-1-1998, which exceeded the one-year period. The Designated Authority requested and was granted extensions by the Central Government, but the appellant contended that these extensions were granted without hearing them, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, however, held that it did not have the jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the Central Government's action in granting the extension.

2. Method of Fixing the Normal Value of Catalysts:
The Designated Authority used the list price of catalysts manufactured by Sud-Chemie of Germany to determine the normal value of the six catalysts exported by the appellant from Denmark. This method was found to be contrary to Section 9A(c) of the Customs Tariff Act, which specifies that the normal value should be based on the comparable price in the ordinary course of trade for the like article in the exporting country or the cost of production plus reasonable profit. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had no domestic market for these catalysts in Denmark and provided the cost of production, which the Designated Authority did not consider.

3. Proper Determination of Injury Margin:
The Designated Authority's method of determining the fair selling price of domestic catalysts by averaging the costs of UCIL and PDIL was questioned. The Tribunal found that the fair selling price did not account for export benefits extended to UCIL, leading to an inflated fair selling price. Additionally, the Designated Authority's approach of fixing two anti-dumping duties for each catalyst based on its end-use was criticized and not supported by the Tribunal.

4. Imposition of Different Anti-dumping Margins Based on End-use:
The Designated Authority imposed different anti-dumping duties based on whether the catalysts were used in fertilizer units or refineries. This was challenged by the appellant and not defended by UCIL. The Tribunal found this approach incorrect, noting that duty rates varied during the relevant period based on the end-use, leading to incorrect fair selling prices and injury margins.

5. Jurisdiction and Powers of the Tribunal Regarding Remand:
The appellant argued that the Tribunal did not have the power to remand the matter to the Designated Authority for de novo consideration, as such power must be specifically conferred. The Tribunal agreed, noting that Section 9C(3) of the Customs Tariff Act limits its powers to confirming, modifying, or annulling the order appealed against, without mentioning remand. Therefore, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the merits of the case without remanding it.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the Designated Authority's method of determining the normal value based on Sud-Chemie's list price was erroneous. It held that the normal value should have been based on the cost of production provided by the appellant. Consequently, it determined that four of the six catalysts were not dumped and set aside the anti-dumping duties on them. For the two catalysts found to be dumped (ZODS and LTS), the Tribunal upheld the imposition of anti-dumping duty on LTS but reduced the duty to Rs. 22.82 per litre, corresponding to the dumping margin. The appeal was disposed of with these observations.