TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1998. The Findings were the result of investigation carried out by the Designated Authority for the period 1st April, 1996 to 31st March, 1997, on petition regarding dumping of the said goods, from the domestic industry, represented mainly by SAIL and Essar Steel. 2.The present appellants are M/s. JSC Severstal, a manufacturer of the said goods in Russia, M/s. Metalrussia, Russia, the exporter of the products of M/s. JSC Severstal to India and M/s. Jai Corporation Ltd. an Indian importer of the said goods. This Tribunal had passed Final Order Nos. 1 to 3/2000-AD, dated 19-1-2000 [2000 (116) E.L.T. 356 (Tribunal)] on these appeals, and allowed the appeals. That order was set aside in appeal by the Supreme Court vide order in Civil Appeal Nos. 1024-1026/2000, 2108-2110/2000 and 1502-1504/2000 [2001 (132) E.L.T. 520 (S.C.)] and the appeals were restored to consider the matter afresh in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Designated Authority (Anti-dumping Directorate) Ministry of Commerce v. Haldor Topsoe A/S, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 11 = 2000 (6) SCC 626. Hence, the present proceedings. 3.As already stated, the Anti-dumping duties were imposed pursuant to the Final Findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhstan and Russia were neighbouring countries and were members of CIS countries. 5.The appellants challenge the finding regarding injury on the ground that there was no material injury to the domestic industry producing like articles from the export of the said goods from Russia inasmuch as the export volumes were not significant enough to affect the domestic industry. On this point, the submission is that during the period of investigation (March, 1996 to April, 1997) import of the said goods actually came down, from 2, 34,147 MTs in 95-96 to 1,94,854 MTs in 1996-97. It has further been submitted that the total dumped imports into India during the investigation period was only 1,91,854 MTs as against the domestic production of 36,99,358 MTs. It has been further submitted that the export prices were less than the domestic sale prices. The appellants have also found fault with the method of comparison of domestic price and landed price adopted by the Designated Authority. It is their grievance that ex-depot price of the domestic industry (SAIL) has been adopted for comparison with the landed price of the imported goods, instead of taking the ex-works price of the domestic indust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ose its cost of production, the Designated Authority is entirely justified in discarding the data produced by that manufacturer and in arriving at the Normal Value for the exported goods based on any other information. He also pointed out that information can as well be the information furnished by the domestic petitioner. Therefore, the learned Counsel contended that in the present case the Designated Authority had worked out the Normal Value for the appellant's goods based on the information furnished by the domestic petitioner and that action was entirely within his discretion and could not be assailed. The learned Counsel also pointed out that in the facts of the present case, the Designated Authority could not act differently in view of the fact that the export price of the said goods from other countries was much higher than the export prices of the appellant and that the appellant had not disclosed his cost of production data to justify such very low export prices. He also pointed out that it is particularly necessary in respect of a non-market economy, as prices in such economies may not reflect cost of production. The Learned Counsel for the Designated Authority also submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... producers meet the price of the dumped imports. Learned Counsel for the Designated Authority submitted that as a result of the unfair price under cutting by the dumped imports, stocks with the domestic producers were rising and they were being forced to undersell, thereby undermining their capacity to service capital, meet the cost of production and to remain in business. He also submitted that there was no impropriety committed by the Designated Authority in comparing the stockyard price of SAIL with the landed price of the imported good, since relevant comparison is between supplies at the sale point and not at the production point. In this context, he pointed out that SAIL, the largest domestic supplier, was making bulk of its sales from depots and not from factories. 10.It is settled law that in Anti-duming proceedings, it is for the exporting country and the exporter to establish that the export prices are in line with Normal Value of the goods. Comparable price in the country of production when meant for local consumption is to be accepted as Normal Value according to Explanation (e)(i) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1995. However, only a sale price ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant's submission that the Normal Value of Ispat Carmet Kazakhstan should have been applied to the appellants. On this point we agree with the Counsel for the ld. Designated Authority that since both the units have been located in different countries and are having very different corporate structures it would not be appropriate to apply cost of production of one to the other notwithstanding their membership among CIS countries. Further, the Designated Authority has stated in the Final Finding that other manufacturers of hot rolled products from Russia had held discussions with the Directorate of Anti-dumping and had accepted the Normal Values being adopted by the Designated Authority. From this, it is clear that the Normal Value adopted by the Designated Authority in respect of Russian exports were in accordance with the provisions of the Anti-dumping Law. The investigation in an Anti-dumping proceedings is as to whether there is dumping of the goods from the alleged foreign country. Therefore, the data acceptable to some manufacturers from a country could legitimately be applied to other manufacturers from that country also. Viewed from this angle also, the course adopted by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, increased domestic supply puts pressure on prices. However, this will be within the limits of efficiency differences among the domestic units. But nature of competition gets ugly when dumped sales from abroad gets into the fray, because dumping is outside the scheme of normal trade and resultant competition. In the present case, the Designated Authority has held that fair selling prices among the domestic producers (petitioners) were comparable and was not the cause of the injury caused to the domestic industry. Instead, it was the dumped prices serving as the bench mark price, which caused the injury. The materials on record show that buyers were demanding that the domestic industry meet the prices of the appellant's dumped supplies. Therefore, the injury is more grievous at the price level and not so much at the volumes level. During the hearing of the appeals, learned Counsel for the Designated Authority has stressed that price effect is to be given due importance in evaluating injury and causal link, since undue price erosion leads to income erosion to the domestic manufacturers and affects their capacity to service capital, meet wage claims and carry on with the business. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
