9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 761X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tiwari, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Shailendra Singh, Advoate, for the Respondent. Shri Sharad Bhansali and Jitendra Singh, Advocates, for the Interested Parties. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed on 9-12-09 along with an application for condonation of delay against the final findings dated 22-6-09 and the Customs Notification No. 89/2009-Cus., dated 31-8-09 issued pursuant thereto. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellants have given reasons for the delay by indicating that they could not obtain the list of interested parties from the Designated Authority (D.A.) on account of the concerned official in the D.A. s office, who was in charge of the investigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereof. The impugned Customs Notification dated 31-8-09 has been issued imposing anti-dumping duty on the subject goods pursuant to the said final findings. The appellants herein are importers of the subject goods and they use the same in the manufacture of Polyurethane Foam . 5. The Ld. Advocate Shri Uday Tiwari, appearing for the appellants states that the respondent Domestic Industry M/s. Manali Petrochemical Ltd., Chennai are the sole producer of the subject goods in India at whose instance the anti-dumping duty was imposed and subsequently continued as a result of the sunset review. He states that the domestic industry is a monopolistic industry being the sole manufacturer and has had the protection of safeguard duty imposed in 1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umping duty and states that the information used by the D.A. was confidential in part since consumption norm was taken from the domestic industry which could not have been disclosed. He also states that the appellants being consumers do not have an inherent right to challenge the normal value. In support of his argument, he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of AIIGMA v. DA. - 2000 (119) E.L.T. 333 (Tri.), wherein it was held by the Tribunal that fixation of normal value is not challengeable by anyone except the exporters or manufacturers of the subject goods and the appellants in that case being importers had no locus standi to come in appeal before the Tribunal to question the correctness or otherwise of the normal value fixed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his prayer to quash the impugned final finding as well as the Customs Notification imposing anti-dumping duty. 13. We have considered the submissions from both sides as well as the case records and the cited case laws. We find that the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants, in the course of hearing of the present appeal, to be far from convincing. In view of the fact that some of the information provided for computation of the normal value such as consumption norms have been provided by the domestic industry, confidentiality maintained in regard to normal value by the D.A. cannot be faulted with. Secondly, as pointed out by the ld. Advocate for the domestic industry, and as held by the Tribunal in the case of AIIGMA (cited su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugh there is no undercutting, the import prices of other countries attracting anti-dumping duty, subject countries and selling price of the domestic industry show some relationship as prices of import and selling price of the domestic industry have declined in the POI. It has been noted earlier that dumped imports continued to take place from China PR, Chinese Taipei and Korea RP as has been assessed in the earlier section of this findings. In case of revocation of anti-dumping duty from subject countries (excluding Brazil), the imports from other countries attracting anti-dumping duty are likely to shift to subject countries (excluding Brazil). Therefore, there is a likelihood of continuous injury to the domestic industry from imports from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et review. The imports from the subject 3 countries, namely China PR, Chinese Taipei and Korea RP, which were already subject to anti-dumping duty, had ho doubt come down to less than 7% in the POL But as recorded by the D.A., imports from other countries (such as USA and Singapore), which were also simultaneously subject to anti-dumping duty under a separate notification was more than 90%. In a sunset review, the D.A. is examining a scenario which is already affected by the existing anti-dumping regime in force. It is bound to be different from the scenario at the time of original examination. In the sunset review, he has to do a likelihood determination as to whether there will be continuance or recurrence of injury if the anti-dumping du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
