Anti-dumping methodology upheld: domestic books data, capital employed adjustments, and reference-landed-value duty all sustained.

In anti-dumping proceedings, the Designated Authority may determine non-injurious price using domestic industry books-of-account data and transfer prices for raw materials where that approach reflects accepted market cost; substitution of a sister concern's cost was rejected because it was not part of the domestic industry. The computation of capital employed was also upheld, as exclusions for fixed assets, finance charges, trial run expenditure, and foreign exchange fluctuation were treated as revenue in nature and no error was shown. The Authority may further tailor duty form to the facts, including a reference-landed-value method, since the framework does not require duty only in fixed or ad valorem form.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Designated Authority correctly determined the non-injurious price by adopting transfer price for raw materials and the books-of-account data of the domestic industry; (ii) Whether the computation of capital employed for one appellant, including exclusions relating to fixed assets, finance charges, trial run expenditure, and foreign exchange fluctuation, was lawful; (iii) Whether anti-dumping duty could validly be imposed with reference to the landed value at import instead of only as a fixed or ad valorem duty.

Issue (i): Whether the Designated Authority correctly determined the non-injurious price by adopting transfer price for raw materials and the books-of-account data of the domestic industry.

Analysis: The same method of adopting transfer price for raw material had already been accepted in an earlier investigation involving the same appellant. The raw material cost reflected an admitted market price, and the domestic industry data under paragraph (iii) of Annexure III to the Anti-Dumping Rules was the proper basis for computing non-injurious price. The contention that the cost of production of the sister concern should be substituted was rejected because that entity was not part of the domestic industry in the present case.

Conclusion: The determination of non-injurious price was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the computation of capital employed for one appellant, including exclusions relating to fixed assets, finance charges, trial run expenditure, and foreign exchange fluctuation, was lawful.

Analysis: The same methodology had been followed in an earlier investigation and was not then challenged. The increase in plant and machinery value without corresponding increase in installed capacity was not satisfactorily explained. The excluded items were treated as revenue in nature and were not allowable as part of capital employed. No error in the Authority's approach was shown.

Conclusion: The computation of capital employed was upheld.

Issue (iii): Whether anti-dumping duty could validly be imposed with reference to the landed value at import instead of only as a fixed or ad valorem duty.

Analysis: There is no mandate in the WTO framework or the Anti-Dumping Rules requiring duty to be imposed only in a particular form. The Authority may tailor the form of duty to the facts of the case, including reference price, fixed duty, or ad valorem duty. Reference-landed-value duty had been used earlier in respect of similar steel products and was treated as an accepted method.

Conclusion: The duty format linked to reference landed value was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed on all material grounds, and the impugned anti-dumping duty determination was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In anti-dumping matters, the Designated Authority may base non-injurious price on domestic industry books-of-account data and may recommend duty in a form suited to the facts of the case, including a reference-landed-value method, so long as the statutory framework is followed.

---