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 challenge. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the appellant's data submissions for the new shipper review and noted the lack of satisfactory responses to verification requests. Despite the appellant's arguments regarding China's market economy status and the adequacy of the verification visit, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of Anti Dumping duty at &8377;155/- per sq. mtr, as determined by the DA.

---

---

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.

---