9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the final finding. He concluded that the dumping and injury are continuing and are likely to continue or recur, if the duties are revoked. Accordingly, he recommended for continuation of AD duties on subject goods imported form sub-countries. The capacity of DI has increased by about 137% and the production increased by 84% in the POI compared to the base year. It was recorded that the capacity addition of the DI appears to be in consonance with the increase in demand of the subject goods. The DA noted that the cost of production has been duly normated to account for additional cost, if any, due to ramp up operation and under utilization of capacity while fixing NIP. It was concluded by the DA that the non-attribution analysis does not show any other factor that could have significantly contributed to the injury suffered by the DI - no interference required with the duty imposed. Improper fixation of export price in respect of the POSCO, Korea/Thailand, we find that the DA has taken into account the relationship between the group companies of POSCO before arriving at the decision - neither the determination nor the interests of the domestic industry have been affected due t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f subject goods from subject countries. The Id. Counsel for these appellants contested the findings in sunset review on various grounds. The main points are- (a) there is no justification to continue AD duty on subject goods. When the DA categorically recorded that the DI has shown healthy performance during injury investigation period, the conclusion on material injury is faulty. (b) the volume of imports declined during the period, as such the justification to continue AD duty is without basis. (c) The Director General (Safeguard) gave his findings on 23.3.2015 stating that there is no serious injury or threat of serious injury to the DI in the period of investigation and hence, no protection is required under safeguard law. Hence, on same set of facts the DA could not have reached different conclusion. (d) the question that injury to DI is possibly caused by higher width of subject goods imported without AD duty and slit before marketed, has not been properly examined by DA. (e) the injury to DI, if any, is due to their higher fixed cost, not due to dumping of subject goods. 4. Ld. Counsel for DI supported the finding of the DA so far as imposition of AD duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper construction of normal price, the Id. Counsel for DA submitted that POSCO, Pune, the 3 rd party referred to in the appeal, did not import at all during the injury period and hence, there is no error in the construction of export price calculation by the DA. It is also submitted that the said third party in India also did not deal with the subject goods by buying from other related importers. Ld. Counsel submitted that the DA is well aware of the relationship among the group companies and has considered this aspect before constructing the export price in respect of the subject goods. 8. We have heard all the interested parties as above and perused the appeal records including the written submissions. 9. The appellant nos. I and 2 are contesting the imposition of anti-dumping duty. The first point is that there is no justification to continue the AD duty in absence of material injury to the DI attributable to the dumped imports. Strong reliance was placed on the findings of the DG (safeguards) dated 23.03.2015. We note that admittedly the DA and DG (safeguards) act in different circumstances and scope. The investigation by the DA is to find out a deliberate act of dumpi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant nos. 1 and 2 and the analysis as recorded in the final findings, we find no merit in these appeals warranting inference with the said findings. 12. Regarding the plea of the appeal nos. 3 representing domestic industry, specifically with reference to improper fixation of export price in respect of the POSCO, Korea/Thailand, we find that the DA has taken into account the relationship between the group companies of POSCO before arriving at the decision. The relevant findings are as below:- 46 In its post disclosure submissions the domestic industry has argued that nine of the cooperating exporters should be granted individual treatment as they have suppressed significant information with regard to their related parties involved in production and supply of the subject goods in various countries. It has been further argued that though two of the related importers of POSCO, Korea have filed importers ' questionnaire response, the third related importer and processor located at Pune has not filed questionnaire response, therefore, the response of POSCO should be rejected. The domestic industry has quoted the decision of the Authority in a recent finding of the Authority w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
