Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 243 - AT - CustomsLevy of anti dumping duty - Interested party - right to participate in the proceedings - Held that:- Unless a party demonstrates to the Authority that it is an importer / exporter of the subject article, it does not acquire the right to participate in the proceedings as an interested party. In respect of exporters, who have not filed the response to the Exporter Questionnaire, the Authority has considered them to be non-cooperating. This principle would apply equally to the importers. It was, therefore, incumbent on the importer to establish that it was an interested party by furnishing the information as required in the importer questionnaire in the course of the investigations. Failure to do so would be fatal to its claim as an interested party. The appellant did not file any information before the Authority to demonstrate that it was an importer of the article under investigation and hence could not be treated as an interested party. Authority has extensively and analytically dealt with the issue and has correctly held that the imported product is in commercial competition with the domestic product and its import would cause injury to the Domestic Industry. Appellant came to know of the investigations and filed written submissions, which have been dealt with on merits in the Final Findings. On the contention relating to improper maintenance of Public File, while ld. Counsel for Designated Authority stated that there was no deficiency in the maintenance of Public File, we are surprised that the appellant did not raise any objection on this aspect immediately after it inspected the Public File for the first time. The appellant is also unable to give the dates on which it inspected the Public File. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant has not been able to make even a prima facie case that the Public File was not properly maintained. As regards the appellant’s contention relating to excessive confidentiality, we find that no such grievance was raised before the Authority during the course of investigations. Even otherwise, the appellant has not been able to bring out the specific information which was not provided to it and how that had the effect of disabling him in exercising its right of defence. Exclusion of the imports from Robin Resources would not have any impact on the economic factors and indices mentioned in Para (iv) above. Further, as stated earlier, the magnitude of margin of dumping would only increase after exclusion of imports from Robin Resources which would accentuate the extent of injury. Therefore, we do not agree that the exclusion of imports from Robin Resources would have altered the injury assessment to the advantage of the appellant. As regards the return on investment adopted for the determination of NIP, we find that apart from being consistent with the practice followed by the Authority, it was based on a claim made by Domestic Industry. That claim was not controverted with evidence at any stage nor was there any ground/reason to suspect any manipulation on the part of Domestic Industry in that regard. - No merit in appeal - Decided against appellant.
|