Anti-dumping duty scope and currency conversion corrected; injury finding upheld on import pressure and declining profitability.

The domestic industry's injury claim was upheld because the relevant comparison showed rising stocks, higher imports from the subject countries, and falling profitability and realisation during the period of investigation. Anti-dumping duty could not be extended to Styrene Butadiene Rubber cleared under heading 3903.90, as the Designated Authority had confined the product scope to specified goods under heading 4002.19; the Tribunal's treatment of that issue as a clerical omission was rejected. The Tribunal also could not convert the duty from rupee terms into US dollar terms, since the original duty was imposed in rupees and there was no basis on the record for altering that formulation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the domestic industry had suffered material injury during the period of investigation; (ii) whether anti-dumping duty could be extended to Styrene Butadiene Rubber cleared under heading 3903.90 and whether the Tribunal was right in treating the matter as a clerical omission; (iii) whether the Tribunal was justified in converting the anti-dumping duty from rupee terms into US dollar terms.

Issue (i): Whether the domestic industry had suffered material injury during the period of investigation.

Analysis: The assessment of injury was based on the data relating to the relevant year of comparison and not on the earlier year's data. The record showed a rise in stocks, increased imports from the subject countries, and a decline in profitability and average realisation. The material placed before the Court supported the conclusion that the domestic industry had suffered a sharp decline in the relevant parameters during the period of investigation.

Conclusion: The finding of material injury was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether anti-dumping duty could be extended to Styrene Butadiene Rubber cleared under heading 3903.90 and whether the Tribunal was right in treating the matter as a clerical omission.

Analysis: The Designated Authority had specifically found that the product under consideration was Styrene Butadiene Rubber of specified series under heading 4002.19 and had not intended to include items cleared under 3903.90. The observation concerning other clearance headings did not amount to a direction to impose duty on all goods under chapter 39, and the Tribunal's treatment of the matter as a clerical omission went beyond the final finding recorded by the authority.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's expansion of the duty to goods under heading 3903.90 was set aside and the original finding was restored, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in converting the anti-dumping duty from rupee terms into US dollar terms.

Analysis: The conversion into US dollar terms was not supported by any request from the parties and was not warranted on the record. The original duty had been imposed in rupee terms by the Designated Authority and there was no basis to alter that formulation.

Conclusion: The conversion into US dollar terms was set aside and the duty in rupee terms was restored, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the limited extent of correcting the scope and currency formulation of the anti-dumping duty, while the finding on injury was sustained.

---