2000 (2) TMI 261 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported Acrylic Fibre from Japan, Portugal, Spain, and Italy.
2. Determination of individual dumping margins for producers and exporters.
3. Legality of imposing minimum anti-dumping duty per Kg.
4. Confidentiality of information during anti-dumping investigations.
5. Inclusion of tow within the scope of the anti-dumping investigation.
6. Injury to the domestic industry due to dumping.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The Designated Authority concluded that acrylic fibre was being exported from Japan, Portugal, Spain, and Italy to India below its normal value, resulting in dumping and causing material injury to the domestic industry. A causal link between dumping and injury was established, leading to the recommendation of definitive anti-dumping duties on all imports of acrylic fibre falling under customs sub-headings 5501.30 and 5503.30.

2. Determination of Individual Dumping Margins:
The appellants argued that the Customs authorities were adopting a uniform landed price of Rs. 81.36 for all exports by the appellants, irrespective of the actual producer's lower landed price. The Tribunal held that anti-dumping duties are exporter-specific and that the goods produced by each of the three Japanese producers (Asahi Chemical Industries Ltd., Mitsubishi Rayon Co. Ltd., and Toyobo Co. Ltd.) should be subjected to anti-dumping duties at the rates applicable to each producer. This determination is in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the Anti-Dumping Rules.

3. Legality of Imposing Minimum Anti-Dumping Duty:
The appellants contended that the imposition of minimum anti-dumping duty per Kg. was not legally correct. The Tribunal upheld this contention, referencing its decision in the case of M/s. B.L.A. Industries, which stated that anti-dumping duties must be imposed in US Dollar terms and not in Indian Rupees. Consequently, the recommendation for imposing a minimum anti-dumping duty was set aside.

4. Confidentiality of Information:
The appeal by M/s Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. argued that the order was passed without providing all relevant information, as the Designated Authority treated certain information as confidential. The Tribunal found that Rule 7 of the Anti-Dumping Rules mandates that any information provided on a confidential basis must be treated as such and not disclosed without authorization. Thus, the Designated Authority's actions were in compliance with the rule, and the confidentiality of the information could not be a reason to invalidate the anti-dumping investigation.

5. Inclusion of Tow within Scope of Investigation:
The appellants contended that tow was a distinct commodity and should not have been included in the investigation. The Designated Authority justified the inclusion of tow, noting that it can easily be converted to acrylic fibre and has similar uses. The Tribunal found no error or illegality in including tow within the scope of the investigation.

6. Injury to Domestic Industry:
The appeal argued that the domestic industry was not injured by the imports, as the industry was making profits and operating at high capacity utilization. However, the Designated Authority's findings indicated continuous losses for the domestic industry over several years, with any marginal profit improvements attributed to the waiver of large loans rather than economic sale prices. The Tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's findings regarding injury to the domestic industry.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal modified the impugned order to align with its findings, particularly regarding the exporter-specific nature of anti-dumping duties and the illegality of imposing minimum anti-dumping duties. The final anti-dumping duties were specified in US Dollar terms for each producer and exporter. The appeal by M/s. Marubeni Corporation was allowed, while the appeal by M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. was dismissed. The table under Para 55 of the Final Findings was accordingly modified to reflect these changes.