Anti-dumping injury analysis upheld where confidential costing data, methodology, and product comparison were found reliable.

Confidential non-injurious price working used in anti-dumping proceedings need not be disclosed in full where it forms part of Annexure III costing material, and no breach of natural justice arises on that basis. The injury and non-injurious price determination was upheld because the authority examined domestic production constraints, raw material disruption, best consumption norms, optimum capacity utilisation, and idle-time expenses while separately assessing the effect of dumped imports. The objection that landed imports and domestic sales were compared without proper bulk and non-bulk segregation failed because similar items were compared on the investigation data and no contrary evidence showed an improper mixed comparison. The anti-dumping findings were sustained and the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-disclosure of the detailed non-injurious price working vitiated the anti-dumping proceedings; (ii) whether the non-injurious price and injury determination were /unsustainable because of closure of the domestic unit and raw material constraints; (iii) whether comparison between landed imports and domestic sales was invalid for want of proper bulk and non-bulk segregation.

Issue (i): Whether non-disclosure of the detailed non-injurious price working vitiated the anti-dumping proceedings.

Analysis: The calculation of non-injurious price under the anti-dumping framework involves confidential data and is required to be worked out in terms of Annexure III. The detailed costing material used by the authority was confidential in nature, and the Court accepted that such material need not be fully disclosed to competing exporters. No breach of natural justice was found on this score.

Conclusion: The challenge based on non-disclosure failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the non-injurious price and injury determination were unsustainable because of closure of the domestic unit and raw material constraints.

Analysis: The authority had examined the domestic industry's performance, including the effect of raw material disruption, lower production, and other economic factors, and had separately assessed the impact of dumped imports. The non-injurious price was determined by applying best consumption norms, optimum capacity utilisation, segregation of idle-time expenses, and the statutory costing principles under Annexure III. The finding that dumped imports contributed to injury was supported by the record.

Conclusion: The non-injurious price and injury determination were upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether comparison between landed imports and domestic sales was invalid for want of proper bulk and non-bulk segregation.

Analysis: The objection that the comparison was made without proper segregation was rejected because the authority had compared similar items on the basis of the data produced in the investigation. The Court found no contrary evidence to show that the comparison was made on an improper or mixed basis.

Conclusion: The bulk and non-bulk comparison objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The anti-dumping findings were sustained and no ground for interference was made out, resulting in dismissal of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: In anti-dumping investigations, confidential costing data supporting non-injurious price determination need not be disclosed in full, and the authority's injury analysis will be upheld where it applies the prescribed costing methodology and compares similar goods on a reliable evidentiary basis.

---