9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ixing individual anti dumping rates based on the data provided by cooperating trading channels. We note such practice has indeed been followed regularly by the DA in various investigations - appeal dismissed. Regarding delay in initiation of investigation it is clear that the DA found it appropriate to call for updated information from the petitioners for the period of investigation chosen for the case and thereafter issued the questionnaire with updated data. Sufficient time of 40 days was given to all the interested parties to filed questionnaire response and to provide other information to defend their interest. It is clear that the DA ensured that all interested parties get adequate opportunity to defend their interest. The DA is required to examine injury in both the parameters of volume and price. It is clearly recorded that all parameters of injury need not show deterioration. It is the cumulative assessment of effect of such imports which is appropriate to determine the injury. In this regard both volume effect and price effect of imports have been dealt with elaborately by the DA - The volume and price of imports from third countries, developments in technology, expo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Tamilnadu Petro Products Ltd. and M/s Nirma Ltd. had filed application before the DA in accordance with the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 for initiation of Anti dumping investigation and for imposition of AD duty on the imports of LAB originating in or exported from Iran, Qatar, China PR and Saudi Arabia. The DA initiated such investigation on these imports, excluding Saudi Arabia as the DA found negative injury margin on import from Saudi Arabia. In terms of the procedure laid down by the AD Rules, 1995 the DA conducted detailed investigation, analysed the data and information submitted by various interested parties and finally arrived at his recommendations published as final findings dated 06/03/2017. He recommended imposition of AD Duty on LAB originating in or exported from China PR, Qatar and Iran. Different rates were recommended for imposition of duty depending upon various combinations of country, producer and exporter. 4. Consequently, the Customs Notification dated 11/04/2017 was issued imposing Anti dumping duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and, as such, AD duty should not have been imposed. 8. Contesting the above submissions of the domestic users of LAB, the learned Counsel for M/s Reliance and M/s Nirma submitted that the delay in initiation of investigation is due to filing of updated petition. Sufficient time has been given to all the interested parties to file their objections. The trend analysis of import of LAB has been correctly made. Two public hearings have been conducted by the DA. Calculation of normal value cannot be challenged by the importers of subject goods. No material facts were made available from China and Iran and the construction of normal value has been properly done by the DA. The learned Counsel further submitted that provision of Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act, 1965 has been properly followed in this case. 9. The learned Counsel for the DA submitted that the data submitted by M/s SEEF, Muntajat and Renish Petrochem have been duly examined by the DA. M/s West Ford has been declared as non-responding exporter. On considering the overall quantum of exports in different channels the DA arrived at the conclusion that the export through non-cooperative exporter constitutes only a small ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Bench. Based on the questionnaire responses the DA examined the required parameters. It is seen that about 88% of exports of LAB produced by SEEF are solely exported through Muntajat either directly or through Renish. The DA has taken into consideration the transaction details as provided in questionnaire responses filed by these exporters and correctly concluded them to be cooperative exporter. West Ford who did not provide questionnaire details were treated as non-cooperative exporter. For non-cooperative exporter, the DA correctly fixed the anti dumping duty under residual category. We find that the DA examined the issue in great detail in his final findings (para 37). On analysis of the questionnaire response and details obtained during investigation, the DA has recorded that Renish has filed questionnaire response, wherein the CIF prices have been provided. The basis for normal value and ex-factory export price are available for this channel of export from producer SEEF and its associate, sole exporter Muntajat. The DA correctly rejected the claim to declare Renish as non-cooperative interested party. On careful consideration of questionnaire responses made available to u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f LAB. The learned Counsel representing this appellant submitted that the scope of DI was not properly analyzed and recognized by the DA during the investigation. Injury analysis was not disclosed fully. M/s Reliance who entered the picture much later was considered as part of DI. It was also contended that selective post disclosure hearing, by not calling all interested parties and not providing sufficient time after disclosure statement has violated the principles of natural justice. It was also alleged that relied upon evidence were not fully disclosed and there is a delay in initiating the anti dumping investigation. The learned Counsel also submitted that there are other factors which caused injury to the DI and not the import of LAB. The LAB imported at different molecular constitution and, as such, should not have been subjected to AD levy. 17. We have heard all the sides on the issues raised by the domestic users of LAB in their appeal. The first point is with reference to correct determination of domestic industry by the DA. Rule 2 (b) of the AD Rules defines domestic industry as under :- domestic industry means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It is clearly recorded that all parameters of injury need not show deterioration. It is the cumulative assessment of effect of such imports which is appropriate to determine the injury. In this regard both volume effect and price effect of imports have been dealt with elaborately by the DA. The contention of the domestic users that there were other factors causing injury to the domestic industry other than import of LAB, has also been examined by the DA. The volume and price of imports from third countries, developments in technology, export performance of the DI and productivity of the DI has been examined by the DA. It is apparent that decline in profits, cash profits and return on capital employed for the DI, is so high that the said decline cannot be attributed to decline in productivity. As such, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant in this regard. 22. The appellant also raised certain objection regarding disclosure and post-disclosure proceedings by the DA. The data provided by M/s Reliance was considered in order to have complete injury assessment and it is necessarily important in order to arrive at a proper conclusion. Regarding violation of principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
