Appeals allowed, products excluded from customs scope. Tribunal finds inclusion beyond defined scope. Import data hindrance.

The Appeals were allowed, and certain products were excluded from the scope of the product under consideration in the Customs Notification. Specifically, two-layered products with plywood as the bottom layer and products with inlay work on the top layer were excluded. The Tribunal found that the inclusion of these products was beyond the initially defined scope and that providing import data in PDF format hindered proper analysis. The judgment was pronounced on 12 June 2020.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Exclusion of two-layered products having ply board as the bottom layer.
2. Exclusion of products having inlay work on the top layer.
3. Provision of soft copy of import data in excel format to the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

(A) Exclusion of Two-Layered Products Having Ply Board as Bottom Layer:
1. Appellants' Argument: The product under consideration was defined as having three layers with the top and bottom layers of real wood and the middle layer of either solid wood or fibre board. Thus, two-layer products with ply board as the bottom layer should not be included.
2. Designated Authority's Stand: Initially, the product was described as having three layers of wood, but the final findings included two-layer products as well.
3. Tribunal's Observation: The application by the domestic producer and the initiation notification both described the product as having three layers. The inclusion of two-layer products with ply board as the bottom layer was beyond the scope defined initially. The Designated Authority did not adequately address the objections raised by the appellants regarding this inclusion.
4. Conclusion: The scope of the product under consideration was improperly expanded to include two-layer products with ply board as the bottom layer.

(B) Exclusion of Products Having Inlay Work on the Top Layer:
1. Appellants' Argument: Products with inlay work on the top layer should be excluded as they were not manufactured by the domestic producer and thus could not cause any material injury to the domestic industry.
2. Designated Authority's Stand: The Designated Authority acknowledged that the domestic producer, being a new industry, might not produce every type of product within the veneered engineered wooden flooring category but did not exclude such products.
3. Tribunal's Observation: The Tribunal noted that products not manufactured by the domestic producer cannot cause material injury to it. Citing previous decisions, the Tribunal emphasized that products not produced domestically should be excluded from anti-dumping duties.
4. Conclusion: Products with inlay work on the top layer should be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration.

(C) Provision of Soft Copy of Import Data in Excel Format:
1. Appellants' Argument: The appellants argued that the Designated Authority should provide the import data in the same format (excel) as it was taken on record to allow proper analysis and comments.
2. Designated Authority's Stand: The Designated Authority typically provides import data in PDF format, which the appellants claimed made it difficult to analyze.
3. Tribunal's Observation: The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that providing data in PDF format hinders proper analysis. It noted that the domestic producer did not claim confidentiality on the soft format of the import data.
4. Conclusion: The Tribunal suggested that the Designated Authority should provide import data in the same format as it was received to ensure transparency and facilitate proper analysis.

Judgment:
The Appeals were allowed, and the following products were excluded from the product under consideration in the Customs Notification dated 27 March 2018, and the Corrigendum Notification dated 10 May 2018:
1. Veneered Engineered Wooden Flooring of two layers having plywood as the bottom layer.
2. Veneered Engineered Wooden Flooring having inlay work on the top layer.

The judgment was pronounced in the open Court on 12 June 2020.

---