2000 (1) TMI 192 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Enhancement of anti-dumping duty on Fused Magnesia.
2. Classification of Fused Magnesia and Sintered Magnesia as "like articles."
3. Injury and causal link between import of Fused Magnesia and the establishment of the domestic industry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Enhancement of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The appellant, M/s. Birla Periclase, requested an enhancement of the anti-dumping duty recommended by the Designated Authority. They argued that the normal value of Magnesia was not correctly fixed based on actual data, particularly the cost of electricity consumed in the manufacture of Fused Magnesia. They claimed that if the electricity costs were properly assessed, the normal value would be higher, resulting in a greater dumping margin and thus justifying a higher anti-dumping duty.

2. Classification of Fused Magnesia and Sintered Magnesia as "Like Articles":
The primary issue was whether Fused Magnesia imported from China and Sintered Magnesia produced domestically are "like articles" under Rule 2(d) of the Rules. The definition includes articles that are identical or alike in all respects and those that, although not alike in all respects, have characteristics closely resembling the articles under investigation. The Tribunal found that while Sintered Magnesia and Fused Magnesia are not identical or alike in all respects, they have closely resembling characteristics such as high-temperature resistance and high purity of MgO (97%). Thus, they fall within the second part of the definition of "like article."

3. Injury and Causal Link:
The Tribunal examined whether the import of Fused Magnesia materially retarded the establishment of the domestic industry. The investigation period was from 1st April 1996 to 30th June 1997, during which the domestic plant for Sintered Magnesia was not operational. The Designated Authority needed to determine the threat of injury or material retardation to the domestic industry and the causal link between dumped imports and their effect on domestic prices.

The Designated Authority found that the difference in crystal size affected the performance of Sintered and Fused Magnesia, but there was no sufficient evidence to conclude that Sintered Magnesia could replace Fused Magnesia. Statements from Visakhapatnam Steel Plant were not authenticated, and there was no concrete evidence to support the interchangeability of the two products.

Dr. K.C. Agarwal's article highlighted that Fused Magnesia has superior refractory properties compared to Sintered Magnesia, indicating that they are complementary rather than interchangeable. The Tribunal concluded that the import of Fused Magnesia did not have a causal link with the retardation of the domestic industry, as they serve distinct purposes and are not interchangeable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal overruled the contention that Sintered Magnesia and Fused Magnesia are different products and not like articles. However, it found no causal link between the import of Fused Magnesia and the retardation of the domestic industry. Consequently, the anti-dumping duty suggested by the Designated Authority on Fused Magnesia imported from China PR could not be sustained, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.