9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 2. The present appeals are directed against this Notification of the Department of Revenue. M/s. Reliance Industries have filed their appeal (numbered as C-267/2000-AD) seeking enhancement of duty in the case of exporter from Spain and imposition of duty on exports from the other countries mentioned in their petition. M/s. Interquisa, Spain has filed their appeal (numbered as C/313/2000-AD) seeking the quashing of the imposition of duty on exports by them. As both the appeals are directed against the same notification, we consider it convenient to deal with both the appeals together and to pass this common order. 3. The grievance of M/s. Reliance Industries is that the Designated Authority had reached findings in the Final Finding dated 20th April 2000 upholding their contention that exports from Japan and Malaysia were also at dumped prices and that the domestic Industry had suffered injury. However, no anti-dumping duty was recommended in respect of imports from Japan and Malaysia on the ground that the imports from these countries were above non-injurious price and, therefore, there was no causal link between dumped imports from these countries and injury to domestic indu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Statement. He, however, submitted that it is settled law that not all duties paid on imported goods are required to be included while computing the landed value. Similarly, a separate addition towards handling charges is not required to be made. The learned Counsel urged that the Tribunal should go into the correctness of the computation of landed value and refix anti-dumping duties on all the parties who would become liable to anti-dumping duty on such refixation. The learned Counsel also submitted that duty in the present case is also required to be fixed in dollar terms, in confirmity with the previous orders of the Tribunal on the subject. 6. Upon consideration of the points raised by the appellants' Counsel regarding non-disclosure of all the details about the elements of cost excluded while fixing the non-injurious price, we directed the representatives of the Designated Authority and the representatives of M/s. Reliance Industries to discuss the matter in a meeting along with their Counsels so that the appellant is made aware of the elements of cost which have been excluded while fixing the non-injurious price, from the cost indicated by them in their cost of production. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ked out including SAD and 2% towards handling charges. He submitted that these additions would not appear to be warranted as SAD is not one of the duties stipulated for working out landed cost. There was also no requirement for making an addition towards handling charges as the same remained included in the 1% landing charges already included. He, therefore, submitted that the landed value was required to be re-computed after excluding these two elements, and consequent changes made in anti-dumping duty already imposed. Both the Counsels agreed that the position as stated by the learned Counsel for the Designated Authority had been discussed and agreed upon by both sides. 9. Appeal of M/s. Interquisa (Appeal No. 313/2000 AD), seeks quashing of the duty imposed on their exports. Their contentions in support of that plea are that at the time of filing of the application by the domestic industry, no imports had taken place from Spain, that the import of 4025 MTs. during the investigation period was de-minimus and that the imposition of duty is contrary to the Disclosure Statement. The appellant submits that in the application of the Domestic Industry (M/s. Reliance Industry) informa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urnished by the appellants was based on 'forecast' and not data regarding actual imports. The Designated Authority was, therefore, right in rejecting a forecast in favour of data regarding actual imports as maintained by Director General of Commercial Intelligence. The exports of the appellant were much in excess of the de-minimus. Therefore, the Designated Authority was justified in considering imposition of anti-dumping duty on their exports. With regard to the variation in finding regarding injury margin between the Disclosure Statement and the recommendation for imposition of duty in the final findings, the learned Counsel explained that while fixing the landed value in the Disclosure Statement, the Designated Authority had made addition towards SAD and handling charges. However these additions are not liable to be made. The Final Findings excluded SAD; but included provisions for handling charges. The injury margin is, therefore, required to be fixed in the case of the present appellant also after excluding these two elements. He also submitted that the duty is also to be imposed in dollar terms in view of the decisions of the Tribunal in earlier cases. 11. We have perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the same, we are constrained to observe that the investigation procedure of the Designated Authority requires greater transparency. We are in agreement with the appellants Counsel that much of the difficulty in the present case is caused by the non-supply of sufficient information in the Disclosure Statement. Through the confidential and non-confidential parts of the Disclosure Statement the Designated Authority is expected to disclose to the parties the basis of determination of non-injurious price and landed value. If care is taken to ensure that the Disclosure Statements fully states the basis of the working out of the non-injurious price, and landed value, the applicants and other parties to the investigations will be in a position to fully comprehend what are the elements of cost proposed to be disallowed by the Designated Authority from the cost of production indicated by them and make informed submissions before conclusion of the investigations. Comprehensive and lucid statement of the basis of computation and the reasons for disallowing the elements not included in the computation of non-injurious price would remove room for mis-understanding and mistakes. This complain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents the extend of injury to the Domestic Industry from the dumped exports i.e. the difference between the revised landed value and non-injurious price, are required to be fixed as duty. 13. Consequent to a revision of the landed value on the lines indicated above, the following injury margins are noticed in respect of exporters who took part in the investigations. Country Exporter Injury Margin Japan 1. 1. M/s. Mitsui Chemical Corporation US $ 7.11 Per M.T. 2. Mitsubishi Chemical Inc. Negative Malayasia 2. 1. M/s. Amoco Chemical Negative Spain 3. 1. M/s. Interquisa US $ 19.90 per M.T. 14. Since injury margins as aforesaid are observed in respect of exports from the above countries definitive anti-dumping duties equal to the injury margins are required to be imposed on the exporters found to be causing injury to the domestic industry by dumping their goods. A definitive anti-dumping duty equal to the highest anti-dumping duty imposed on the exporters from each of the subject exporting countries is also required to be imposed on all other exporters who did not participate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
