9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Anti Dumping Appeals No.51344-51346 and 51490, 51489, 51403-51404 of 2017 with Stay Applications No.50648-50650, 50723, 50722 and 50672-50673 of 2017 - AD/A/57064-57070/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 9-10-2017 - Shri Dr. Satish Chandra, President, Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) S/Shri Ritesh Singh, Advocate, Sudhir K. Mathur, Senior Advocate (Sl. No.7), Saumya Gupta, Advocate (Sl. No.5,6,8,9) for the appellants. S/Shri Ameet Singh, Advocate for DA, M.P. Devrath, Advocate (respondent Sl. No.13,14,15,16) and Ms. Reena Khair, Advocate for DI and Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran These are seven appeals directed against final findings dated 10/03/2017 of the Designated Authority (DA), Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi and Customs Notification No.23/2017 CUS (ADD) dated 16/05/2017 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. The said customs notification imposed Anti Dumping duty on aluminium foil originating in, or exported from China ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ministry of Finance. On consideration of the said recommendations, the Ministry of Finance issued the Customs Notification dated 16/05/2017 imposing AD Duty on aluminium foil originating in or exported from China PR. The table annexed to the said notification indicated the amount of Anti Dumping Duty payable per kg. of import, depending upon the producer/exporter of China as detailed therein. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5 appellants who are pleading for exclusion of colour coated aluminium foil from the scope of product under consideration, submitted that the DA did not record separate finding on the request made by the appellants for exclusion of colour coated aluminium foil from the scope of investigation and imposition of AD duty. The said colour coated aluminium foil is a basic and main raw material for manufacture of aluminium composite panel. The learned Counsel submitted that though the appellants submitted elaborate details regarding non-availability or non-manufacture of colour coated aluminium foil by D.I., no specific finding was recorded by the DA. In fact, it would appear that, by error, the impugned final findings excluded aluminium compos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by these 5 appellants are allowed in the above manner. 11. The other two appeals are for exclusion of certain types of aluminium foils based on the width (above 1614 mm) and also on pinhole count. In appeal No.AD/51489/2017 the appellants specifically contested the non-exclusion of ULG foil as the pinhole count is not within the requirement of the user industry. Though there are other submissions made in the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant restricted his arguments only on this issue. 12. In appeal No.AD/51490/2017, the appellant is aggrieved by non-exclusion of aluminium foil (alloy 8021) below 40 microns as the pinhole count is not within the requirement zero pinholes aluminium foil which is not capable of being manufactured by the DI. The DA has not given a specific finding on alloy 8021. Further, it was also contested that the findings based on the aluminium prices without reference to LME rates is faulty. 13. The learned Counsel for the Domestic Industry contested both these appeals on the ground that the DA has given his clear findings regarding product under consideration. The decision of the Tribunal in Andhra Petrochemicals Vs. Designated Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actually incorrect and therefore could not be accepted. 22. A number of interested parties have contended that the pinholes in the aluminium foil supplied by the domestic industry are far higher than the pinholes in the aluminium foil produced and supplied by the Chinese suppliers. It has also been contended that the consumers of ULG foil do not accept aluminium foil having pinholes beyond 150. It is, however, noted from the document provided by the parties requesting exclusion that Chinese producers and suppliers have produced and supplied the aluminium foil having pinhole upto 500. In fact, the product specification of the Chinese supplier clearly mentions pinhole as 600. It is also noted that there is no standard prescribed by BIS with regard to maximum pinholes that may be in an aluminium foil. Since product specification sheet of the Chinese producers and the domestic industry show pinholes in the region of 200-800 sq./mtr, it cannot be contended that the ULG produced and supplied by the Chinese producers have pinholes upto 500. The authority notes in this regard that if the government has prescribed certain standards of a product and the same are supplied by the domesti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t capacity to meet the demand of ULG in the country, the authority notes if there is a demand supply gap in the country, the foreign producers can certainly fill the gap in the country by bringing the product at a fair price. Demand supply gap does not justify dumping of the product . 17. Against the above finding, the present appellants did not bring out any material fact to persuade us to interfere with the same. The appellants did raise certain quality parameters of a few types of aluminium foil to claim that these should be excluded as the required quality standards are not available from Domestic Industry. This has been answered after detailed analysis by the DA. We find no reason to interfere with such finding. The product type, admittedly covers a vide variety of finished goods. We note that the product specification of Chinese producers and the Domestic Industry did indicate the overall coverage of scope of the said goods. The appellants are submitting to make a fine distinction on certain qualities. As already noted, we do not appreciate that the scope of investigation and the imposition of Anti Dumping duty can be varied on such a fine distinction of certain qualities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
