Appeals Denied: Anti-Dumping Duty Upheld for Clear Float Glass Imports

The appeals challenging the imposition of anti-dumping duty on clear float glass imported from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE were rejected. The Designated Authority's decision to impose the duty was upheld by the tribunal, which found no serious procedural breaches and determined that the DA followed the proper procedures in analyzing the issues raised. The judgment was pronounced on 07/09/2016.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging imposition of anti-dumping duty on clear float glass imported from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, non-disclosure of data, adjustment for start-up costs, determination of normal value, volume of imports determination, assessment of negligibility of injury, improper quantification of injury, violation of principles of natural justice in considering post-public hearing data.

Analysis:
The six appeals challenged the final findings of the Designated Authority (DA) imposing anti-dumping duty on clear float glass imported from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and UAE. The Indian manufacturers approached the DA for an anti-dumping investigation, leading to the imposition of the duty. The appeals mainly contested non-disclosure of data, adjustment for start-up costs, determination of normal value, and volume of imports from Pakistan. The DA relied on data from DGCI&S, conducted spot verifications, and analyzed the volume effect of dumped imports. The DA's reliance on DGCI&S data was criticized due to inconsistencies and mismatch in the data, but the DA considered the data for analysis, maintaining confidentiality of importers' particulars. The appeals also raised concerns about the rejection of start-up cost adjustment by the DA, which was found to be reasonable by the tribunal, noting that adjustments are made in exceptional cases with strong reasons.

The appeals from the Pakistani producers/exporters contested the volume of imports and the assessment of negligibility of injury. Import data did not include imports through Wagah Customs Port, but the DA considered Pakistan for injury analysis. The DA concluded that the injury to domestic industries was due to dumped imports after analyzing all factors. The appeals by the domestic industries raised issues regarding the determination of normal value, alleging undue advantage enjoyed by producers in Saudi Arabia and UAE due to government intervention in energy prices. However, the DI did not provide data-based evidence to support this claim. The DA followed the AD Rules in determining normal value, export price, and dumping margin for each producer/exporter accordingly.

Regarding the post-public hearing data, the DA provided all relevant information and opportunities for comments to interested parties, following the procedure set out in the AD Rules. The tribunal found no serious procedural breach and rejected all appeals after a careful analysis of the issues raised. The judgment was pronounced on 07/09/2016.

---