P.T. ASAHIMAS CHEMICALS Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY/MINISTRY OF FINANCE
LAWS(CE)-2015-2-5
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 13,2015

P.T. Asahimas Chemicals Appellant
VERSUS
Designated Authority/Ministry Of Finance Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BORAX MORARJI LIMITED V. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
THAI ACRYLIC FIBRE CO. LTD. V. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
THAI ACRYLIC FIBRE CO. LTD. V. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
RISHIROOP POLYMERS PVT LTD VS. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ADDL SECRETARY [REFERRED TO]
APAR INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. MINISTRY OF FINANCE, THE [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R.K. Singh, Member (T) - (1.)BY Notification No. dated 14.11.2003, the Central Government imposed anti -dumping duties on the imports of caustic soda originating in EU (excluding France), Indonesia and Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) for a period of 5 years. Consequent to the midterm investigations, the Central Government modified the duties vide Notification No. dated 10.7.2006. The present appeals have been filed by P.T. Asahimas Chemicals (Indonesian exporter) under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 against the sunset review Notification No. dated 13.05.2009 of the Central Government read with Final Findings dated 26.3.2009 of the Designated Authority, in terms of which anti -dumping duty has been continued for a further period of 5 years on the imports of caustic soda from EU (Excluding France) and Indonesia, and discontinued on the imports from Taiwan
(2.)BASED on an application filed by the Alkali Manufacturers Association of India, (domestic Industry), sunset review investigations were initiated by the Designated Authority on 7.3.2008 to ascertain the need for continued imposition of duties and whether the expiry of anti -dumping duties would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, injury or both. In respect of the appellant, the Authority held that the exports, had been made at a price above their normal value, that is at un -dumped prices but since the exports had been made only during a limited period, they were considered to be temporary and unreliable. On this basis, it was concluded that the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury can not be rules out. The exports by other exporters from Indonesia and EU were found to be dumped, that is at prices below their normal value. The Authority found that there was a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury both for Indonesia and EU(excluding France), were the duties to be revoked. The Authority accordingly recommended continuation of duties in respect of imports from Indonesia and EU (excluding France). Duties in respect of Taiwan were discontinued, as the Authority found that there was no likelihood of dumping or injury from the exports from Taiwan.
Arguments of Appellant Exporter

The challenge in the present appeal is to the extension of duties on the exports made by the appellant from Indonesia. The counsel for the appellant assailed the findings on the ground that the Authority had committed a serious error in continuing the duties, even though it found that the exports made by the appellant to India, were at un -dumped prices, that is above the normal value. The Authority also erred in considering their exports to India as unreliable, merely because they were at prices lower than those reflected in the World Trade Atlas. The appellant further submitted that the exports to India constituted a significant part of their overall exports during the period of investigation, and hence could not be considered as unreliable. The circumstance that the exports to India were only made during the period of Investigation (P.O.I.), also does not lead to any inference that the exports are temporary or contrived. The exports, being substantial, ought to have been taken into consideration for the likelihood analysis. The appellant also pointed out that adequate disclosure of the detailed calculations of normal value, export price and dumping margin had not been made to them by the authority, causing serious prejudice.

Argument of Respondent Domestic Industry

(3.)THE counsel for the domestic industry submitted that the duties are country specific, and there is no legal requirement of determination of individual dumping margins for the appellant exporter in a sunset review. Absence of current dumping is not a sufficient and valid ground for revocation of duties. It was emphasized that in review proceedings, the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury and not current levels of dumping are to be seen. In this context, they relied upon the Tribunal decision in the case of Thai Acrylic Fibre Co. Ltd. v. Designated Authority reported in : 2010 (253) ELT 564.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.