Tribunal directs fresh disclosure statement and reassessment of Malaysian exporter status.

The Tribunal set aside the final findings and the notification, directing the Designated Authority to issue a fresh disclosure statement, allow comments, and provide new final findings. The Designated Authority was instructed to reconsider the status of the Malaysian exporter. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for reassessment following the given directions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the anti-dumping investigation initiation and period of investigation.
2. Adequacy and correctness of the disclosure statement.
3. Contradictions between the disclosure statement and the final findings.
4. Methodology for determining dumping and injury margins.
5. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Locus standi of the non-cooperative Malaysian exporter.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the anti-dumping investigation initiation and period of investigation:
The appellant, a major producer of non-woven fabrics, filed an application on 17 March 2016 for initiating anti-dumping investigation concerning imports from Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, and China PR. The Designated Authority initiated the investigation on 15 June 2016, selecting the period from 1 July 2015 to 31 March 2016. The investigation was deemed valid as the appellant constituted a major proportion of the total production in India, satisfying the standing as a domestic industry.

2. Adequacy and correctness of the disclosure statement:
The disclosure statement dated 2 August 2017 indicated positive dumping margins for most exporters and concluded that the domestic industry suffered material injury due to dumped imports. The statement detailed the significant increase in imports, the domestic industry's increased production and sales but continued losses, and the causal link between dumped imports and injury. The disclosure statement was found to be adequate and correct at the time it was issued.

3. Contradictions between the disclosure statement and the final findings:
The final findings dated 2 September 2017 concluded that the dumping margin was de minimis for most exporters, the domestic industry's losses were due to teething problems, and the nine-month period was too short to judge the trend. These conclusions were contrary to the disclosure statement, which had indicated significant dumping margins and material injury. The Designated Authority's final findings were found to be inconsistent with the disclosure statement.

4. Methodology for determining dumping and injury margins:
The Designated Authority acknowledged an inadvertent error in the methodology used in the disclosure statement, which was corrected in the final findings by adopting a Product Control Number (PCN) to PCN comparison. However, this change in methodology was not disclosed to the domestic industry, violating Rule 16 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. The final findings failed to specify the inadvertent error or the corrected methodology, leading to a lack of transparency.

5. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice:
The appellant argued that the Designated Authority relied on facts not disclosed in the disclosure statement, depriving the appellant of an opportunity to respond. The Tribunal agreed, stating that failure to disclose essential facts under consideration violated principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. Designated Authority emphasized the need for transparency and the right to defend one's interests.

6. Locus standi of the non-cooperative Malaysian exporter:
The non-cooperative Malaysian exporter, whose representation was rejected by the Designated Authority, was allowed to participate in the proceedings as a respondent. The Tribunal noted that Rule 5(2)(c) of CEGAT Procedure Rules 1996 permits any person who submitted representations during the investigation to be joined as a respondent.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the final findings and the notification issued by the Central Government, directing the Designated Authority to issue a fresh disclosure statement with complete details, afford an opportunity for comments, and provide fresh final findings. The Designated Authority was also given liberty to reconsider the status of the Malaysian exporter. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded for re-evaluation in light of the directions provided.

---