2016 (10) TMI 606 - AT - Customs

Imposition of ADD - Soda Ash - import from China PR, European Union, Kenya, Iran, Pakistan, Ukraine and USA as well as Turkey and Russia respectively - sale price higher than NIP - price injury to the domestic industry - Held that - there is no legal provision to mandate the DA to compare NIP with NSR in order to determine the price effect. NSR is not the only parameter to decide on AD duties. The other price effects of imports such as price suppression and price depression are to examined. These aspects have been specifically examined by the DA in para 117 and 118 of his findings dated 17/2/2012. He concluded that there is a price suppression affecting the DI. It was further recorded that per unit profits of DI in respect of production and sale in the domestic market has significantly declined during the injury period. On perusal of the confidential information as submitted by the learned Counsel for the DA as seen from para 117 and 125 of the findings it is noted that the landed price is much lower than the NIP and the return on investigation for the DI is much below the general bench mark. ADD rightly imposed - no force in the submission of the appellant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against final findings of the Designated Authority imposing Anti Dumping Duty on Soda Ash imported from various countries
- Delay in filing appeal by one appellant
- Allegation of no injury to the Domestic Industry due to higher sales realization than Normal Value (NIP)

Analysis:
1. Appeal against Anti Dumping Duty: The appeals were filed against the final findings of the Designated Authority (DA) imposing Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) on Soda Ash imported from different countries. The appeals challenged the Customs Notifications issued based on these findings. The All India Glass Manufacturers Federation and M/s ETI Soda Sogutozu Business Centre filed separate appeals against the final findings and Customs Notifications related to the imposition of ADD on Soda Ash imported from various countries.

2. Delay in Filing Appeal: A delay of 5 days in filing the appeal by M/s ETI Soda Sogutozu Business Centre was noted. However, after considering the reasons provided for the delay, the appeal was allowed to be taken on record for disposal.

3. Allegation of No Injury to Domestic Industry: The main contention raised by the appellants was that there was no injury to the Domestic Industry (DI) as their sales realization was higher than the Normal Value (NIP). The appellants argued that the DA's analysis was incorrect and failed to distinguish between different types of Soda Ash used by different industries. They claimed that the DI had been realizing higher amounts than NIP, indicating no injury.

4. Arguments by Counsels: The counsel for the appellants argued against the imposition of ADD, emphasizing the higher sales realization of the DI compared to NIP. On the other hand, the counsel for the Domestic Industry supported the DA's findings, highlighting the increase in dumped imports and price suppression affecting the DI's profits.

5. DA's Findings: The DA concluded that there was a significant increase in dumped imports, leading to price suppression and decline in the DI's profits. The DA's analysis considered various factors such as landed price, return on investment, and price effects of imports. The DA's findings were detailed in para 117 and 118 of the final report.

6. Decision: After hearing all parties and reviewing the submissions and confidential information, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals. The Tribunal upheld the DA's findings regarding price suppression and decline in DI profits, dismissing the appeals against the imposition of ADD on Soda Ash. The miscellaneous applications for condonation of delay and stay were also disposed of during the proceedings.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment covers the issues raised in the appeals and provides a detailed overview of the arguments presented, the DA's findings, and the Tribunal's decision.