Non-injurious price methodology for captive inputs must follow a reasoned, legally sustainable basis; remand ordered for redetermination.

In an anti-dumping sunset review, the non-injurious price computation for captively consumed inputs was found unsustainable where the Designated Authority departed from an established practice of allowing return on capital employed without recording convincing reasons. Reliance on Central Excise valuation norms, including Rule 8 and CAS-4, was held to lack a clear statutory basis under the anti-dumping framework for this purpose. The faulty methodology affected the price determination to that extent, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and redetermination of the non-injurious price after hearing the interested parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Designated Authority was justified in computing the non-injurious price by applying a different method for captively used inputs and by relying on Central Excise valuation norms instead of the established approach of allowing return on capital employed.

Analysis: The appeal concerned the method used for arriving at the non-injurious price in an anti-dumping sunset review where several inputs were produced and consumed captively by the domestic industry. The record showed that in earlier cases the Designated Authority had been allowing a return on capital employed for such captive inputs, but in the present matter it departed from that practice without recording a convincing reason. The adopted reliance on Rule 8 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and CAS-4 was found to have no clear statutory mandate under the anti-dumping framework for determining non-injurious price. The deviation from settled practice and the absence of recorded reasons rendered the computation faulty to that extent.

Conclusion: The method adopted for captive inputs was held unsustainable, and the matter was remitted to the Designated Authority for fresh consideration and redetermination after giving opportunity to the interested parties.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only on the pricing methodology for captive inputs, leading to a remand for fresh determination of the non-injurious price and consequential anti-dumping duty.

Ratio Decidendi: In anti-dumping investigations, departure from an established valuation practice for captively consumed inputs must be supported by a legally sustainable reasoned basis; otherwise, the resulting non-injurious price determination is liable to be set aside and reconsidered.

---