- (1.) The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2242 of 2006, namely, M/s. Alkali Manufacturers Association of India, filed a petition under Rule 5 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (for short, "Anti-Dumping Rules") before the Designated Authority (DA) on behalf of the domestic industry alleging dumping of caustic soda originated in and exported from People's Republic of China and Korea. On the basis of the said petition/ complaint, DA issued a notification initiating anti-dumping investigation covering the period from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2003. The interested parties were required to place their views in writing before the said authority and after causing a preliminary inquiry, the findings were sent to the known exporters, importers and embassies of the two countries and exporters in the other countries to furnish their views to the DA. Opportunity of public hearing was afforded to the interested parties on 18.02.2003 and the parties were asked to submit their written submissions. On 14.07.2003, the DA issued a disclosure statement under Rule 16 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2242 of 2006 filed its comments on the disclosure statement before the DA and requested the said authority to disclose the reasons in detail for the determination of the preliminary findings recorded on 21.09.2002. Be it stated, the DA had notified its preliminary findings stating that the caustic soda had been dumped into India except from one exporter from Korea, M/s. Hanwha Chemical Corporation at less than its normal value as a result of which the Indian manufacturers of caustic soda had suffered injury. The DA provisionally recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty as the difference between $353.20 per MT and landed price of imports on every exporter from Korea except M/s. Hanwha Chemical Corporation (HCC) and the difference between $362.34 and landed price of imports on all exports from China. Regard being had to the preliminary findings, the Ministry of Finance had issued Notification No. 142 of 2002 on 26.12.2002 imposing preliminary anti-dumping duties. After hearing the interested parties and issuance of the disclosure statement, the DA issued its final findings in which it determined that the dumping margin for all exporters from Korea was 37.30%, except for HCC for which it determined a dumping margin of (-)4.2% (de minimis), and the dumping margin for all exporters from China was 84.05%, except for Chlor Shanghai for which it determined a dumping margin of 41.7%. The said order was passed on 04.08.2003 and a final Notification No. 142 of 2003 was issued by the Central Government on 23.09.2003.
(2.) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Notification, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2242 of 2006 filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, "the tribunal") challenging the determination of the DA on antidumping duty. Two other companies, namely, M/s. National Aluminum Company Ltd. and M/ s. Hindustan Lever Limited also preferred appeals challenging the imposition of antidumping duty on import of caustic soda.
(3.) Before the tribunal, it was contended by the complaint/appellant that the findings of the DA on the imports made from HCC recommending the anti dumping margin is de minimis (minus 4.2%) is not based on the correct appreciation of the facts and the normal value and the export price of sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) had not been correctly worked out in case of HCC as the data provided by the said Corporation was not correct. The said contention was elaborated on many a score which included that the export price as defined in Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1995 (for short, "Act") had not been correctly determined; that the DA could not have worked out export price at ex-factory level as deduction allowed for arriving at the ex-factory price was without checking the records of HCC inasmuch as no appropriate response was given to the questionnaire; that the DA should have taken into consideration the price of each individual transaction for comparison of normal value and the export price. It was also urged that the methodology adopted by the DA for arriving at the cost of production was not disclosed although the authority was required to disclose all the reasons for arriving at the conclusion.;