Anti-dumping review: injury findings stand where cost components are considered, data is verified, and injury is judged on current facts.

In anti-dumping review proceedings, the injury determination was sustained because advertising and sales promotion expenses were shown to have been included in the non-injurious price calculation, so the alleged distortion of injury margin was not established. The Tribunal also accepted that the designated authority had examined and verified the costing data of Merbok, Sri Lanka on record, and that spot verification was not always required where the material had otherwise been scrutinised. On sunset review, material injury must be assessed on contemporaneous facts during the review period, not on speculative assumptions about the future continuance or cessation of a time-bound exemption.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether advertising and sales promotion expenses were excluded while computing the non-injurious price and thereby distorted the injury margin and anti-dumping duty; (ii) whether the designated authority improperly accepted the costing data of Merbok, Sri Lanka without due verification; (iii) whether a time-bound area-based exemption could be disregarded while assessing material injury in the sunset review.

Issue (i): whether advertising and sales promotion expenses were excluded while computing the non-injurious price and thereby distorted the injury margin and anti-dumping duty.

Analysis: The confidential calculation placed before the Tribunal showed that under the administrative heads, advertising and sales promotion expenses had been fully allowed as claimed. The grievance that such expenses were ignored was therefore not borne out by the record.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the designated authority improperly accepted the costing data of Merbok, Sri Lanka without due verification.

Analysis: The record showed that the designated authority had verified the data and held discussions on relevant points before arriving at the conclusion. The Tribunal accepted that spot verification is not invariably necessary where the material has otherwise been examined.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant.

Issue (iii): whether a time-bound area-based exemption could be disregarded while assessing material injury in the sunset review.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the authority must consider the material facts relevant to the period under review and cannot proceed on speculative future continuance or cessation of exemption while determining injury. The existing record and contemporaneous facts were the proper basis for the finding.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned findings were upheld and no interference was warranted, resulting in rejection of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: In anti-dumping review proceedings, the designated authority's injury determination will not be disturbed where the relevant cost components have been considered, the underlying data has been verified on record, and material injury is assessed on contemporaneous facts rather than speculative future assumptions.

---