2017 (1) TMI 70 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Anti-Dumping Duty on Chinese Vitrified Tiles

The Tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's decision to impose Anti Dumping Duty on vitrified tiles imported from China PR, rejecting the appellant's ... ADD - import of vitrified tiles from China PR - individual dumping margin in respect of the exports of vitrified tiles made to India - Held that: - It is clear that at the time of filing request for new shipper review, the appellants were aware that M/s Foshan Hongligao Trade Co. Ltd. is actual holder of export licence in China and details regarding VAT paid on inputs etc. are required for verification. The DA has called for details of refunds received on exports of goods. These particulars were not submitted to the satisfactory extent. The DA has discounted the claim that the said exporting company is only facilitating the documentation handling for export. The export is done by person holding export licence. The DA has examined the complete channel of export. On careful examination of the company involved in export and the appellant status while claiming the new shipper review, the DA concluded that no individual dumping margin is justified in respect of the appellant - appeal rejected - decided against appellant. Issues:Challenging final finding of Designated Authority (DA) on new shipper review under Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 for vitrified tiles import from China PR.Analysis:The appellant contested the DA's decision dated 24/07/2013 regarding the imposition of Anti Dumping Duty on vitrified tiles from China PR. The appellant filed a new shipper review under Rule 22 of Customs Tariff Rules, claiming they had not exported the product to India during the original investigation or Sunset review. The DA initiated an investigation but concluded that no individual dumping margin was justified for the appellant's exports to India, imposing Anti Dumping duty of &8377;155/- per sq. mtr. The appellant argued that China should be treated as a market economy country and that the verification visit by the DA was inadequate due to the appellant's unit closure during the Chinese new year. Additionally, the DA rejected a second review application by the Domestic Industry based on negative dumping and injury margin during the investigation period of 2012-2013, leading the appellant to challenge the imposition of Anti Dumping duty.The appellant's counsel contended that the DA erred in not recognizing China as a market economy and that the verification visit was incomplete due to the unit's closure during the Chinese new year. They also challenged the rejection of the second review application by the Domestic Industry based on negative margins during the investigation period. The DA's counsel opposed the appeal, asserting that all aspects were adequately covered in the final findings of 22/07/2013.After hearing both parties and reviewing the appeal records, the Tribunal noted that the required information for the new shipper review was submitted, but there were discrepancies in the data provided, including production figures and investment details. The DA observed that the actual exporter held the export license and had not responded to their requests for information. The DA concluded that no individual dumping margin was justified for the appellant based on the discrepancies and lack of satisfactory responses to verification requests. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the DA's findings, upheld the decision, rejecting the appeal on 08/12/2016.