Tribunal Upholds Anti-Dumping Duty on Melamine from China

The Tribunal upheld the imposition and continuation of anti-dumping duty on "Melamine" from China, dismissing appeals and validating the Customs Notification. The Designated Authority's determination of individual margins of dumping, selection of Qatar as a surrogate country, and methodology were affirmed as reasonable and in compliance with the 1995 Rules. Procedural objections raised were not upheld, and the final anti-dumping duties were imposed based on the determined margins.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Imposition and continuation of anti-dumping duty on "Melamine" from China.
2. Initiation and findings of the New Shipper Review under Rule 22 of the 1995 Rules.
3. Determination of individual margins of dumping for the producer and exporter.
4. Selection of Qatar as a surrogate country for determining normal value.
5. Allegations of procedural flaws and violation of natural justice.
6. Submissions from the Domestic Industry, importer, and Designated Authority.
7. Final determination of anti-dumping duties and the validity of the Customs Notification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition and Continuation of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The Government of India initially imposed anti-dumping duty on "Melamine" from China for five years through a Customs Notification dated November 16, 2004. This duty was extended twice, each for a further period of five years, through notifications dated February 19, 2010, and January 28, 2016, respectively.

2. Initiation and Findings of the New Shipper Review:
A New Shipper Review was initiated at the request of M/s Kuitun Jinjiang Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. (producer) and Foshan Kaisino Building Material Co. (exporter) to determine individual margins of dumping. The Designated Authority initiated the review on January 1, 2018, and determined individual anti-dumping duties based on the findings.

3. Determination of Individual Margins of Dumping:
The Designated Authority computed the normal value following the second method in paragraph 7 of Annexure-I to the 1995 Rules, which involves using the price from a market economy third country. Qatar was selected as the surrogate country, and individual anti-dumping duties were imposed based on the determined margins.

4. Selection of Qatar as Surrogate Country:
The Designated Authority chose Qatar as the surrogate country due to its significant export volume to India and the absence of anti-dumping duties on imports from Qatar. The normal value was determined after making necessary adjustments, and the methodology was disclosed to the interested parties.

5. Allegations of Procedural Flaws and Violation of Natural Justice:
The producer and exporter alleged procedural flaws, including not being informed about the selection of Qatar as a surrogate country and not being provided with the normal value computation. However, the Tribunal found that the producer/exporter failed to provide necessary information at the initial stages and did not suggest any specific criteria for determining the normal value.

6. Submissions from the Domestic Industry, Importer, and Designated Authority:
The Domestic Industry argued that the exporter failed to provide information for determining the normal value and alleged manipulation of export prices. The importer contended that the application for the New Shipper Review was not maintainable due to fictitiously high export prices. The Designated Authority defended its methodology and the selection of Qatar as a surrogate country.

7. Final Determination of Anti-Dumping Duties and Validity of Customs Notification:
The Tribunal upheld the Designated Authority's findings and methodology, dismissing the appeals filed by the producer, exporter, Domestic Industry, and importer. The final anti-dumping duties were imposed based on the determined individual margins of dumping, and the Customs Notification dated September 6, 2019, was validated.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all four appeals, affirming the Designated Authority's determination of individual margins of dumping and the imposition of anti-dumping duties. The methodology adopted, including the selection of Qatar as a surrogate country, was found to be reasonable and in accordance with the 1995 Rules. The procedural objections raised by the producer/exporter were not upheld, and the final findings and Customs Notification were maintained.

---