Tribunal Upholds Anti-Dumping Duty, Rejects Appeals

The tribunal dismissed all appeals, upholding the customs notification imposing anti-dumping duty on subject goods. The Designated Authority's findings on injury, causal link, NIP, natural justice, "like article" determination, price calculations, and confidentiality claims were deemed valid. The tribunal found no merit in appellants' arguments, affirming the thoroughness and compliance of the investigation with relevant rules.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Injury and causal link determination
2. Determination of Non-Injurious Price (NIP)
3. Violation of principles of natural justice
4. Determination of "like article"
5. Calculation of net ex-factory export price
6. Inclusion of Hyosung Corporation in the notification for imposition of AD duty
7. Excessive claims of confidentiality by exporters

Detailed Analysis:

1. Injury and Causal Link Determination:
The appellants argued that the injury and causal link determination by the Designated Authority (DA) was not in accordance with Annexure II of the Anti Dumping (AD) Rules. They contended that the volume effect, evaluated in terms of sales, market share, capacity utilization, production, and inventory levels, showed no adverse impact due to the import of subject goods. They claimed that the Domestic Industry (DI) had increased sales and met more domestic demand, with imports decreasing during the investigation period. The DA, however, found that despite the DI operating at full capacity, it could not make profits due to price pressure from dumped imports. The DA's detailed analysis revealed that the DI had to match discounted landed prices, resulting in continued losses despite improved commercial parameters. The tribunal agreed with the DA's findings, noting no contrary evidence.

2. Determination of Non-Injurious Price (NIP):
The appellants claimed that the determination of NIP was not in accordance with Annexure III of the AD Rules. They argued that the DA examined "price under selling," which is not an injury parameter. The DA, however, found significant price under selling when comparing landed values with the non-injury prices of the DI. The tribunal upheld the DA's conclusion that the DI's performance remained negative in terms of profit, return on investment, and inventory levels.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as they were not called for the third oral hearing and were not provided full details of DGCIS statistics. The tribunal noted that multiple hearings were held with due notice, and the appellants had the opportunity to present their case. The tribunal found no breach of due process in the investigation.

4. Determination of "Like Article":
The appellants contended that the goods manufactured by the DI could not be considered "like articles" with imports, citing differences in quality and performance. The DA examined the question of quality comparison and found no infirmity in the findings. The tribunal upheld the DA's determination that the subject goods were "like articles" as per Rule 2(d) of the AD Rules.

5. Calculation of Net Ex-Factory Export Price:
Hyosung Vietnam and Hyosung Korea argued that the calculation of the net ex-factory export price was incorrect, with the entire income of Hyosung India office being applied for adjustment instead of the commission amount for the product under consideration (PUC). The DA examined the submissions and made adjustments for inland freight, overseas freight, handling charges, marine insurance, credit cost, bank charges, and drawback reimbursement. An additional adjustment was made for the commission paid to the Delhi office. The tribunal found no infirmity in the DA's process.

6. Inclusion of Hyosung Corporation in the Notification for Imposition of AD Duty:
Hyosung Corporation argued that they should not have been included in the notification for imposition of AD duty as the DA recommended a nil duty rate. The tribunal noted that Rule 14 of the AD Rules does not contemplate part closure of investigation and that the DA must consider the overall import picture for the PUC. The tribunal found no merit in the claim for termination of the investigation for Hyosung Corporation.

7. Excessive Claims of Confidentiality by Exporters:
The DI contended that the DA erred in accepting excessive claims of confidentiality by exporters and that several additional documents were taken on record without following Rule 7 of the AD Rules. The tribunal found that the DI's points were generic and lacked specific details. The DA examined the sufficiency of the claims of confidentiality and recorded findings accordingly. The tribunal found no merit in the DI's appeal.

Conclusion:
The tribunal dismissed all the appeals, finding no merit in any of the arguments against the final findings and the customs notification imposing anti-dumping duty on the subject goods imported from the subject countries. The DA's investigation and conclusions were upheld as methodical and in accordance with the prescribed rules.

---