TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... domestic industry before reaching the conclusion. The injury to the domestic industry is likely to recur in case the present AD duties are not modified. The definitive AD duty has been revised based on such recommendation by the DA - the imposition of AD duty per-se cannot be challenged. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Anti Dumping Appeal Nos. 3, 4 and 14 of 2012 - Final Order Nos. 53159-53161/2016 - Dated:- 23-8-2016 - Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President, Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Sh. Dhruv Gupta and Sh. Ankur Sharma, Advocates for the Appellants Sh. Amit Singh, Advocate for the DA Sh. Govind Dixit, AR for the Revenue Sh. Rajesh Sharma and Ms. Rita Jha, Advocates for the Domestic Industry ORDER Notification No. 92/2011-Cus. dated 20.09.2011 of Ministry of Finance and Final Findings on Mid Term Review dated 05.08.2011 of the Designated Authority (DA), Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry are challenged in these three appeals by the appellants. M/s Kumho Petrochemical Co. Limited, Korea are manufacturers and exporter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty not for its enhancement. (iv) The determination of normal value for the applicant is incorrect. In a multi-product company the records may not reasonably reflect the cost of production and sale of subject goods. The comparison of raw material cost from other market economy country is not correct. The cost of production in the country of origin is relevant. (v) The finding on injury analyses is incorrect. The domestic sales of the subject goods have increased as well as the profit margin and cash flow has also improved over the injury period with reference to domestic industry. (vi) The determination of DA on price under cutting/ price under selling has no consequence. The investigation and analyses in Mid Term Review is different from that of sun-set review. In sun-set review likelihood of recurrence of injury is examined for extension of AD duty for further period. The DA has erred in enhancing AD duty as there is no injury at all to the domestic industry during the relevant period. 4. Shri Rajesh Sharma, Id. Advocate appearing on behalf of NOCIL submitted that the present appeal was preferred by them in continuation of their earlier appeal against the Final Findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmation to substantiate the need for Mid Term Review and for appropriate action by DA in terms of the above said Rules. We have perused the findings of DA. He has exercised the powers under Rule 23 and followed the procedure as stipulated which are substantially as applicable to the initial investigation as mentioned in Rule 23(3) stipulating the application of various Rules for such review. 7. We find the appellants challenge on lack of power by DA is without legal basis. Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in Merino Panel Products Limited vs. Designated Authority - 2011 (271) ELT 336 (P H) held as under: 7. It is well known that provisions for anti-dumping duty have been incorporated to safeguard the domestic industry against practice of exporting countries dumping their goods at less than normal value resulting in injury to the domestic industry. To achieve this object, the Central Government has been authorised to impose anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping. If it is proved that anti-dumping duty has been imposed in excess of margin of dumping, the importer is entitled to refund under Section 9AA. The Rules provide for manner in which the effect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the facts and circumstances that it is considered necessary either to withdraw or modify appropriately the AD duty which has been imposed the DA can act accordingly. As such, we find no legal infirmity in the Mid Term Review by the DA. 9. Considering the methodology adopted by the DA in arriving at the recommendations for modifying the imposition of AD duty consequent upon such Mid Term Review. We find that the procedure envisaged has been followed by the DA. The DA has considered volume effect of dumped margin, price effect, price under selling, price suppression and depression and other economic parameters relating to domestic industry before reaching the conclusion. We have perused the said analyses and found no merit in the appellant's challenge to the same. Regarding the substantial change and circumstances, we find the authority followed adjusted cost of production and sale of the subject goods. The DA recorded that the main appellant (Korean manufacturer) continued to source their main input 4ADPA from same non market economy company and as such the DA constructed the cost of production of 4ADPA. We find no merit in the appellant's contention regarding the arri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
