TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the DA. On the causal link, the point raised by the appellant, like high inland freight cost and poor performance of DI due to other factors, due consideration was given by the DA in his investigation. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Anti Dumping Appeal No.51787 of 2017 with ROA, Application No.50984 of 2017 - A/50336/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 15-1-2018 - Shri Dr. Satish Chandra, President, Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Mansimran Singh, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Suresh Kumar, Advocate For DA, Shri M.P. Devnath, Advocate for DI Sh. R.K. Manjhi, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal findings dated 20/10/2016 of the DA, carefully. The DA has examined the application for initiating the anti-dumping investigation and, upon prima facie satisfaction, commenced the investigation. Regarding the product under consideration and like articles the DA recorded the following findings :- 8. The product under consideration (PUC) in the present investigation is Low Ash Metallurgical Coke (Met Coke). The product under consideration does not include other Metallurgical Coke with high ash content which is in excess of 18%. 9. Low Ash Met Coke is produced by destructive distillation of coking coal in the absence/regulated presence of oxygen at high temperatures (ranging between 1100 to 1350 degree centigrade) causing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5-18% as compared to Met Coke of ash content below 15%. Further, the input-output norms laid down by the DGFT are not binding on the product definition in the anti-dumping investigations as they are prescribed for different purpose. With regard to the exclusion of Met Coke containing low ash (upto 12.5%), low phosphorous (up to 0.018%) and low sulphur (upto 0.65%) or with moisture content of upto 5% from the scope of the product under consideration, it is noted that the domestic industry has provided sufficient evidence to show that they have produced and supplied the subject goods of the above description. The Authority also notes that there is no case for exclusion of lump coke from the scope of the product under consideration. It is note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et tariff classification of the goods. The users are using the dumped goods from the subject countries and the goods produced by the domestic industry interchangeably . 10. The appellants contested that the DA has wrongly considered the scope of subject goods and metallurgical coke having ash content of above 15% and less than 12.5% should have been excluded from the scope of subject goods. In this connection, we have carefully considered the submissions made by the DI and the findings recorded in the DA. During the course of argument and written submissions thereafter, the DI produced documentary evidences to show that steel companies used metallurgical coke with ash content above 15% in their blast furnace. Documents also show rece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., manufacture of Met Coke for captive use and manufacture of Met Coke for marketing / sales. The manufacturers who are producing Met Coke for their captive use are being excluded from the purview of the current investigation as their production is not in competition with the imported subject goods. Further, the economics of producers for captive consumption and of producers for sale are very different. The former saves on the costs of marketing sales, inventory etc. The applicant has stated that there are some steel manufacturers who produce Met Coke for their captive consumption. The applicant has provided the details of the names of the steel producers as available having production of Met Coke for captive consumption, namely, Steel Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e no direct relevance to the dispute in the present case and we are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the DI regarding the scope of those decisions, recorded earlier in this order. We find no infirmity in the conclusion of the DA while determining the scope of DI in the investigation. 13. The appellants strongly contested that there is no injury to domestic industry due to import of subject goods from the specified countries. The loss or injury, if any, to the domestic industry is not relatable to import of subject goods but are due to other reasons. The AD duty is not legally sustainable as there is no causal link between the injury and the import. In this connection, we have examined the findings of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
