Anti-dumping duty valuation upheld where no evidence proved dual pricing or favoured gas pricing in normal value determination.

Anti-dumping duty quantification for an exporter from the UAE was challenged on the basis that the Designated Authority had erred in fixing normal value. The record, however, did not show substantive documentary evidence of dual pricing or preferential gas pricing to the producer-exporter. The Authority had considered the objections, verified the project report, and applied standard accounting norms in constructing cost, while also treating related-party sales as made in the ordinary course of trade for normal value determination. The challenge to the normal value calculation therefore failed and the duty quantification was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Designated Authority erred in determining the normal value and quantifying anti-dumping duty in respect of the exporter from the UAE.

Analysis: The appellant supported imposition of anti-dumping duty but disputed only the quantification for one exporter. The record disclosed no substantive documentary evidence to establish dual pricing or favoured pricing in gas supplied to the producer exporter. The Designated Authority had examined the objections, verified the project report and applied standard accounting norms while constructing cost. The related-party sales were also considered and accepted as having been made in the ordinary course of trade for normal value determination.

Conclusion: The quantification of anti-dumping duty was upheld and the challenge to the normal value determination failed.

---