2000 (1) TMI 193 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Standing of the petitioner to file the petition.
2. Fixing of normal value and dumping margin.
3. Legality of minimum anti-dumping duty.
4. Exporter-specific anti-dumping duty and its currency denomination.

Summary:

Issue 1: Standing of the Petitioner:
The PR exporters contended that the petitioner did not have the standing to file the petition on behalf of the domestic industry, arguing that the exclusion of RINL, a major producer, was incorrect. The Designated Authority (DA) excluded RINL because its Met Coke had more than 15% ash content and was captively consumed. The Tribunal upheld the DA's decision, stating that the exclusion was justified as RINL's production did not compete with imported goods and was for captive consumption, which aligns with the proviso to Rule 2(d).

Issue 2: Fixing of Normal Value and Dumping Margin:
The PR exporters argued against the DA's method of constructing the normal value, claiming it should have accepted the domestic sale prices. The DA rejected the domestic prices due to insufficient information and non-compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Tribunal supported the DA's decision to construct the normal value based on cost of production, considering the non-market economy status of China and the unreliability of the exporters' accounts. The DA's method of allocating costs to by-products was also upheld.

Issue 3: Legality of Minimum Anti-Dumping Duty:
The PR exporters challenged the corrigendum that imposed a minimum anti-dumping duty, arguing it was contrary to Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, which stipulates that anti-dumping duty should not exceed the margin of dumping. The Tribunal agreed, stating that fixing a minimum duty could lead to imposing duties even when export prices are at or above the normal value, which is illegal. Thus, the corrigendum was set aside.

Issue 4: Exporter-Specific Anti-Dumping Duty and Currency Denomination:
The domestic manufacturer appealed for exporter-specific duties and for duties to be fixed in US dollars. The Tribunal agreed that anti-dumping duties should be exporter-specific, reflecting different dumping margins. It also held that anti-dumping duties should be imposed in dollar terms but payable in Indian Rupees to maintain the protection level against currency fluctuations. The Tribunal modified the final findings to impose exporter-specific duties in dollar terms and confirmed the rest of the DA's findings.

Additional Observations:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of non-interference by government authorities in the DA's quasi-judicial functions to maintain the independent and impartial administration of anti-dumping laws.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal disposed of all appeals, confirming the DA's findings with modifications to impose exporter-specific anti-dumping duties in dollar terms and setting aside the corrigendum. Copies of the order were directed to be sent to Secretaries of all Ministries/Departments in the Government of India to prevent future interference with the DA's functions.