1997 (3) TMI 567 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Anti-Dumping Duty, Dismisses Appeals

AUTOMOTIVE TYRE IMPORTERS ASSOCIATION Versus DESIGNATED AUTHORITY

The Tribunal upheld the Final Findings and the customs notification imposing anti-dumping duty, dismissing all appeals. It found the Domestic Industry's ... Anti dumping duty - DA has taken into consideration the provisions of Rule 11 of the Anti-Dumping Rules and the Annexure-II to the Rules referred to therein in regard to determination of injury - It is well settled that the DA is required to examine the overall impact of the dumped imports by evaluation of all the economic factors as a whole and not be guided by evaluation of any particular economic criterion - The quantum of anti-dumping duty recommended by the DA and imposed by the Government has also not been assailed before us - The quantum of anti-dumping duty recommended by the DA and imposed by the Government has also not been assailed before us - Appeals are dismissed Issues:Challenge to final findings and imposition of anti-dumping duty by Automotive Tyres Importers Association (ATIA), All India Confederation of Goods Vehicle Owners' Association (ACOGOA), and M/s. Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co. Ltd. (Exporter). Locus standi of ATIA and ACOGOA as Interested Parties. Arguments against findings on injury and causal relationship. Justification of imposition of anti-dumping duty.Analysis:The case involved appeals challenging the final findings and imposition of anti-dumping duty by ATIA, ACOGOA, and a foreign exporter. The Domestic Industry supported the findings and levy, questioning the locus standi of ATIA and ACOGOA as Interested Parties. The definition of an Interested Party under the Anti-Dumping Rules was crucial, requiring a majority of members to be importers. ATIA and ACOGOA failed to demonstrate their eligibility, lacking necessary information and not filing the importer questionnaire, leading to doubts about their standing in the proceedings.The arguments presented focused on the findings of injury and causal relationship. The appellants contested the findings, claiming that the share of imports was insignificant and did not cause injury to the domestic industry. They argued that various economic indicators showed no harm to the industry, questioning the necessity of anti-dumping duty. The appellant exporter highlighted the failure to compare like goods in the investigation, raising concerns about the validity of the findings.In response, the Domestic Industry and the DA defended the levy, emphasizing the detailed analysis conducted by the DA. They argued that all aspects were considered, and the findings were comprehensive and justified. The Domestic Industry sought re-determination of dumping margin and levy of anti-dumping duty in rupee terms, although these grounds were not pressed during arguments.The Tribunal reviewed the case records and the arguments presented. They acknowledged the detailed findings of the DA, particularly noting the establishment of dumping, adverse effects on the market, and the analysis of economic factors leading to the conclusion of material injury. The Tribunal found that the DA had followed the Anti-Dumping Rules diligently, evaluating all economic factors collectively and arriving at a fair conclusion regarding injury and causal relationship.Ultimately, the Tribunal found no evidence of malice or perversity in the DA's findings. The quantum of anti-dumping duty was not challenged, leading to the dismissal of all appeals. The Tribunal upheld the Final Findings and the customs notification imposing anti-dumping duty, concluding that there was no reason to interfere with the decisions made.