TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Government has also not been assailed before us - Appeals are dismissed - AD/11-13/2007 , AD/1/2008 - AD/1-4/2011(PB) - Dated:- 31-3-1997 - Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Shri D.N. Panda, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Shailender Saini, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Ms. Reena Khair and Rajesh Sharma, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Ameet Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) (Oral)]. On a complaint filed by the Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association (Domestic Industry), the DA initiated anti-dumping investigations leading to issue of :- (i) Final Finding Notification dt. 29-6-2007 (ii) Customs Notification No. 88/2007 dt. 24-7-2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cific objections raised by the Domestic Industry. She states that ATIA and ACOGOA can not also be considered as aggrieved persons before the Tribunal having not produced any information regarding their credentials including registration under any law and their objects and purpose. She states that neither the associations nor the majority of their members have filed the importer questionnaire. 4. In reply, the learned Advocate, Shri Saini merely produces a copy of letter dated 22-9-06 from a chartered accountant (without enclosures) addressed to the Director in the DA s office purportedly furnishing information in respect of 4 members of ATIA. He also produces a copy of ACOGOA s letter fy/16/10/2006 to the Director in D.A. s office intimat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ports compared to total consumption is insignificant and cannot be a cause of injury to the domestic industry. He also states that many of the economic indicators taken into consideration by the DA reveals that the domestic industry has not suffered any injury and some of the other negative indicators are due to other factors and not attributable to subject imports. He argues that sales, production, ability to raise capital investments, employment and productivity of the Domestic Industry has increased as also its market share, capacity utilization etc. which do not justify imposition of anti-dumping duty. On behalf of the appellant exporter, he also makes a point that the DA has not compared like goods for the purpose of the present invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ket share of dumped imports show adverse volume effect (para 61). (iv) Effect of dumped imports on the price in the domestic market has been adverse for the reason stated in para 62 of the Final Findings. (v) Various economic factors have been analysed by the DA in paragraph 63 onwards and arguments against injury have also been considered by the DA in paragraph 77 onwards before coming to an overall conclusion in para 79 of the Final Findings that the Domestic Industry has suffered material injury. (vi) Similarly, after a detailed examination, the DA has arrived at a fair conclusion that the dumped imports have caused material injury. 8. We find that the DA has taken into consideration the provisions of Rule 11 of the Anti- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per unit of sales and deterioration in return on capital employed etc. As such D.A. s overall conclusions on material injury is justified. Similarly, the conclusion of the DA on causal link in paragraph 83 follows a fair analysis and cannot be faulted with. 9. No arguments have been advanced before us to demonstrate that the finding of the DA in regard to determination of dumping, injury and causal relationship between the two, are either mala fide or perverse. The quantum of anti-dumping duty recommended by the DA and imposed by the Government has also not been assailed before us. Under these circumstances, we find that no reason to interfere with the impugned Final Findings or the customs notification imposing anti-dumping duty. Conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
