Tribunal Upholds Discontinuation of Anti-Dumping Duty on PVC Flex Film from China

The Tribunal upheld the designated authority's decision to discontinue the anti-dumping duty on PVC Flex Film imports from China, citing a lack of factual basis to support the likelihood of continued injury if the duty was lifted. The appeal seeking a continuation of the duty for another five years was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Issuance of notification recommending withdrawal of anti-dumping duty.
2. Examination of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
3. Reliability and authenticity of the market research report.
4. Consideration of volume and price effects of dumped imports.
5. Determination of injury to domestic industry.
6. Examination of economic parameters of the domestic industry.
7. Non-attribution analysis.
8. Application of the principles for determination of injury.
9. Compliance with procedural requirements and confidentiality.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issuance of Notification Recommending Withdrawal of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The appeal was filed against the notification dated 28.10.2021, which recommended the withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on PVC Flex Film imports from China. The anti-dumping duty had been initially imposed for five years by a notification dated 08.08.2016. The appellant sought modification of the final findings to continue the anti-dumping duty for another five years.

2. Examination of Likelihood of Continuation or Recurrence of Dumping and Injury:
The designated authority initiated a second sunset review to assess the need for continued imposition of duties. The investigation period was from 01.10.2019 to 30.09.2020. The authority issued a disclosure statement on 20.10.2021, inviting comments from interested parties. The authority concluded that there was no justification for the continuance of anti-dumping duty due to the significant decline in imports and lack of sufficient independent corroborative evidence.

3. Reliability and Authenticity of the Market Research Report:
The appellant relied on a market research report to establish the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury. The designated authority rejected this report because it lacked the name of the author/agency and the original data source. The Tribunal upheld this rejection, noting that the appellant did not raise the issue of confidentiality due to the Data Secrecy Law in the appeal memorandum and failed to provide a non-confidential summary.

4. Consideration of Volume and Price Effects of Dumped Imports:
The authority noted a significant decline in the volume of imports from China, both in absolute and relative terms. The imports were less than 1% of Indian demand and production from 2018-19 onwards. The price undercutting was negative, and the domestic industry's selling price declined over the injury period while the landed price of imports increased.

5. Determination of Injury to Domestic Industry:
The authority examined various economic parameters, including capacity, production, sales, and market share of the domestic industry. It concluded that the decline in performance was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and not due to dumped imports. The domestic industry admitted that the injury was not caused by subject imports.

6. Examination of Economic Parameters of the Domestic Industry:
The authority found that the domestic industry's capacity increased, but production and sales declined during the investigation period. The market share of the domestic industry reduced, while the market share of other Indian producers increased. The profits per unit, cash profits, and return on capital employed declined due to the pandemic.

7. Non-Attribution Analysis:
The authority examined other factors that could have caused injury to the domestic industry, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, inter-se competition, and increased fixed costs. It concluded that the injury was not attributable to dumped imports and did not require segregation of injury caused by other factors.

8. Application of the Principles for Determination of Injury:
The authority applied the principles set out in Annexure II of the 1995 Rules, which require that the determination of injury must be based on facts and not on allegations, conjectures, or remote possibilities. The change in circumstances must be clearly foreseen and imminent.

9. Compliance with Procedural Requirements and Confidentiality:
The appellant failed to provide the name of the author/agency of the market research report and a non-confidential summary to other interested parties. The Tribunal noted that the designated authority conducted a rigorous examination and that the appellant did not discharge the burden of proof to substantiate the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the designated authority's decision to discontinue the anti-dumping duty, finding no sufficient factual basis to conclude that there was a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury if the duty was revoked. The appeal was dismissed.

---