9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 912X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing margin, in respect of other exports from Indonesia, as reflected in Paragraph 25 of the Final Findings. It is settled position that anti-dumping duties are required to be country specific and there is no legal requirement to determine the appellant-specific dumping margin in sun-set review. On the aspect of injury, although duties were in force, the domestic industry continued to be injured by the exports from Indonesia, as reflected in the Final Findings. Thus the Authority rightly determined that there is a likelihood of dumping and injury, warranting continuation of duties from Indonesia. - As regards the grievance regarding inadequate disclosure, we find that the appellant has not clearly brought out the specific details, which were not provided to it. The Authority has disputed this. Even otherwise, the Authority has accepted all the information furnished by the appellant, and in respect of their exports determined a negative dumping margin based on the information furnished. Thus, they can not justifiably claim to have been prejudiced. - No infirmity in the findings of the Designated Authority - Decided against assessee. - AD/13/2009-CU[DB] - Final Order No. 50334/2015 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e exports from Taiwan. Arguments of Appellant Exporter 3. The challenge in the present appeal is to the extension of duties on the exports made by the appellant from Indonesia. The counsel for the appellant assailed the findings on the ground that the Authority had committed a serious error in continuing the duties, even though it found that the exports made by the appellant to India, were at un-dumped prices, that is above the normal value. The Authority also erred in considering their exports to India as unreliable, merely because they were at prices lower than those reflected in the World Trade Atlas. The appellant further submitted that the exports to India constituted a significant part of their overall exports during the period of investigation, and hence could not be considered as unreliable. The circumstance that the exports to India were only made during the period of Investigation (P.O.I.), also does not lead to any inference that the exports are temporary or contrived. The exports, being substantial, ought to have been taken into consideration for the likelihood analysis. The appellant also pointed out that adequate disclosure of the detailed calculations of normal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there was non disclosure of detailed calculations relating to dumping margin, normal value, etc., it was submitted that a confidential disclosure was given to the exporter containing relevant details. In any case, in a sunset review, the likelihood of future dumping and not current dumping is to be seen. Arguments on behalf of Revenue 7. Ld. Departmental Representative for Revenue supported the notification on the ground that it was based on valid legal considerations. He referred to the final findings, and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Alembic Ltd. reported in 2013 (291) ELT 327 (Guj.), on the point that the Central Government had implemented the recommendation for levy of duties as it was in the public interest. Analysis and Finding 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant foreign exporter, the domestic industry, DA and the Department of Revenue. The issue which arises for our consideration is whether the Designated Authority was correct in rejecting the exports made by the appellant during the period of investigation as being temporary and unreliable and proceeding to give its findings on the likeliho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge in the various parameters. The entire purpose of the review inquiry is not to see whether thee is a need for imposition of anti-dumping duty but to see whether in the absence of such continuance, dumping would increase and the domestic industry suffer. The WTO Panel in the case of CRCS Flat Products from Japan vide WT/DS244/R dated 14.8.2003 (as quoted in CESTAT judgment in case of Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. Ltd Vs. Designated Authority [2020 (253) E.L.T. 564 (Tri-Del)] observed as under: 7.168. We thus do not believe that the substantive disciplines in Article 2 governing the calculation of dumping margins in making a determination of dumping apply in making a determination of likelihood of continuation of recurrence of dumping under Article 11.3. To hold otherwise would mean that a new and full determination regarding the existence of dumping since the imposition of the order would be necessary in a sunset review. We find no such obligation in the text of Article 11.3 nor in Article 2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. In case of APAR Industries Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority 2006 (200) E.L.T. 34 (Tri-Del), Cestat also held as under: It is to be borne in mind that the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter-factual analysis of future events, based on projected levels of dumped imports, prices, and impact on domestic producers. Thus the D.A. has to address the question as to whether the domestic industry is likely to be materially injured again, if duties are lifted. 11. In the light the aforesaid legal position, we are of the view that the question to be addressed is not whether there is current dumping, but whether revocation of duty would result in recurrence of dumping and injury. In the peculiar facts of this case, the appellant chose to export only during a particular period (i.e. the period of investigation). The original duties were imposed on 27th March, 2003, and were due to expire on 26th March, 2008. The investigations were initiated on March 7, 2008 and the findings were rendered on March 26, 2009. From the findings, we note that there were no exports from March 2003 (when duties were imposed) till January 2007 nor any exports after December, 2007 by the appellant. The exports were made only during the period January to December 2007, which was known to be relevant for the sunset review investigations. No reason was given by the appellant as to why the exports were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al matrix discussed above, we find nothing unreasonable on the part of the Designated Authority in holding the appellant s exports as unreliable and temporary. 12. Having found the exports of the appellant to be unreliable and temporary the Authority proceeded to determine the likelihood of dumping and injury based on the determination relating to other exports from Indonesia. The Authority found a positive dumping margin, in respect of other exports from Indonesia, as reflected in Paragraph 25 of the Final Findings. It is settled position that anti-dumping duties are required to be country specific and there is no legal requirement to determine the appellant-specific dumping margin in sun-set review. On the aspect of injury, although duties were in force, the domestic industry continued to be injured by the exports from Indonesia, as reflected in Paragraph 54 of the Final Findings. Thus the Authority rightly determined that there is a likelihood of dumping and injury, warranting continuation of duties from Indonesia. 13. As regards the grievance regarding inadequate disclosure, we find that the appellant has not clearly brought out the specific details, which were not provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
