Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + AT Indian Laws - 2007 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (6) TMI 326 - AT - Indian LawsWithdrawing the Anti-dumping duty - ‘Borax decahydrate’ imported from Turkey - reduction in the normal value - CIF export price to India of the subject goods increased - landed value was higher than the reference price fixed - challenges the Notification dated 20-4-2006 issued by the Government of India and the Notification dated 3-2-2006 issued - Admittedly, the producer ETI Maden of Turkey did not export the product itself, but the product was exported from Turkey to India through Boro Chemi International Pvt. Ltd., Singapore - HELD THAT:- It has been clearly established that there was a negative dumping margin of 1.38% determined in the final findings of the designated authority. We are satisfied that the dumping margin has been worked out, by correctly applying the principles governing the determination of normal value, export price and the dumping margin, in Annexure-I to the said Rules. In this context, we may refer to the provisions of Rule 14, which contemplates termination of investigation immediately, if the designated authority determines that the margin of dumping is less than 2% of the export price under clause (c) of the said Rules. This clause reflects what is known as rule of de minimis. Therefore, upto 2%, the margin of dumping is to be ignored i.e. it will be taken as if there was no dumping margin for the purpose of the levy. In this context, an established negative margin of dumping of minus 1.38%, which was the figure given to us by both the sides as the correct figure, cannot be brushed aside or ignored. We therefore, find ourselves in agreement with the reasoning of the learned designated authority for concluding that there was no dumping margin for the subject goods established with regard to imports of Turkey and that there was no likelihood of continued dumping of the subject goods from Turkey. In fact, the designated authority had verified that the Indian importers had resold the imported goods at a significantly higher price than the price at which they were imported. The finding that there was no dumping was based on verification of the factual data relating to the period of investigation for the review. When the export price of the subject goods were significantly lower than the prices at which they were exported by the producer to other countries, and the importers in India had resold the product at a significantly higher price to the end users in India, it clearly showed that the Indian market was capable of absorbing the price, as rightly held by the learned designated authority. Thus, we do not find any warrant for interference with the impugned notification or the final findings, on any of the grounds urged on behalf of the appellant. The appeal is therefore, dismissed.
|