9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (2) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... detailed investigations published final findings by notification dated 14-10-1997. Authority recommended imposition of Anti-dumping duty. Based on the recommendation of the Authority, Finance Ministry issued Notification No. 81/97, dated 24-10-1997 imposing Anti-dumping duty of Rs. 9.73 per Kg. of acrylic fibre exported by Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. 2.Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. requested for a review of Anti-dumping duty. Based on the evidence and information furnished therein, the Designated Authority initiated a review investigation on 14-7-1998. The period of investigation for that review was fixed as 1st January 1997 to 30th September 1997. Based on the materials collected during investigation, Designated Authority published its final finding on 1-4-1999, wherein it recommended Anti-dumping duty of Rs. 5.039 per Kg. Government of India did not accept the said recommendation made by the Designated Authority to vary the Anti- dumping duty on acrylic fibre. On 6-4-1999 Forum of Acrylic Fibre Manufacturers requested the Designated Authority for further review of Anti- dumping duty in force. Thereupon, the Designated Authority initiated investigation and issued notification dated 26-4-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course of action, Designated Authority went wrong in varying the period of investigation. Data collected by Designated Authority for the period from 1st January 98 to 31st March 98 should not have been acted upon. During that period, it was contended that the cost of raw material was at its maximum and the exchange rate of Thai Currency (Baht) was at its lowest rate as against US$. In contra distinction to the period from 1st January 1998 to 31st March 1998, the value of raw material was very low during the quarter of January 99 to 31st March 99. During this period, it was said, Baht became stronger as against US$. So, the Designated Authority's conclusions given in the final finding should call for modification. 5.Learned Senior Counsel, Shri M. Chandrasekharan, representing the Designated Authority, wanted to verify the correctness of the abovementioned two arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel representing the Acrylic Fibre Company. Accordingly, parties were directed to sit together and to re-examine the issue. On such re-examination it was found that Designated Authority wrongly varied the period of investigation, inasmuch as it ignored three months period from January 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ining normal value, provided it has determined that (i) such sales are made within a reasonable period of time not less than six months) in substantial quantities, i.e. when the weighted average selling price of the article is below the weighted average per unit costs or when the volume of the sales below per unit costs represents not less than twenty per cent of the volume sold in transactions under consideration, and (ii) such sales are at prices which do not provide for the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. The said prices will be considered to provide for recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time if they are above weighted average per unit costs for the period of investigation, even though they might have been below per unit costs at the time of sale. 7.Main part of the above clause states that sales of the like product in the domestic market at prices below per unit cost of production may be treated as not being in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price. It means that the domestic sales must not be at a price below per unit cost of production. Sales of the subject goods in the domestic market may take place throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... market to be excluded only when the sale price happens to be below the per unit cost of production and not weighted average of the cost of production. 8.In view of the above understanding of the provisions contained in Clause (2) of Annexure I, Designated Authority was clearly in error in rejecting all sales which were effected at prices below weighted average unit cost of production for the period of investigation. Only those sales at prices below per unit cost of production at the relevant time should have been excluded as not having been effected in the ordinary course of trade. This should also be subject to the provisos contained in sub-clauses 1 and 2. Even in applying this, it should have been examined whether such sales were within the reasonable period of not less than six months and whether it was in relation to substantial quantity of not less than 20% of the volume. 9.Learned Counsel representing the Designated Authority rightly and fairly conceded that the Designated Authority did not approach the issue in the manner in which Clause (2) of Annexure I was worded and understood by us as stated above. When it was found that there was variation in the period of investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
