Anti-dumping duty depends on proven dumping, injury, and causal link; unsupported handling charges cannot inflate landed value.

Anti-dumping duty is sustainable only where dumping is established by a comparison showing export price below normal value and where injury and causal link to dumped imports are supported by the relevant injury indicators. On that basis, duty was not justified for the exporter whose dumping margin was negative, while the challenge failed for the other exporters because the authority's findings on imports, market share, profitability, stocks, and injury to the domestic industry were upheld. The material also states that an unsupported 2% handling charge should not be added to landed value for injury-margin computation, and that anti-dumping duty may be expressed in US dollar terms.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anti-dumping duty could be sustained against an exporter where the dumping margin was found to be negative. (ii) Whether the challenge to the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the other exporters, on the grounds of absence of dumping, absence of injury, and absence of causal link, was liable to succeed. (iii) Whether 2% handling charges could be added while computing landed value for determining injury margin, and whether the duty could be imposed in US dollar terms.

Issue (i): Whether anti-dumping duty could be sustained against an exporter where the dumping margin was found to be negative.

Analysis: The record showed that the export price was slightly higher than the normal value worked out on the basis of cost of production, resulting in a negative dumping margin. Anti-dumping duty is attracted only where export price is below normal value. Since the exporter was not found to be dumping, there was no basis for imposing duty in its case.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the exporter and the anti-dumping duty imposed on its exports was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the other exporters, on the grounds of absence of dumping, absence of injury, and absence of causal link, was liable to succeed.

Analysis: The designated authority's findings were supported by examination of the relevant injury parameters, including volume of imports, market share, sales realisation, off take, closing stocks, profitability, and the effect of dumped imports on the domestic industry. The authority found that the exporters were selling below normal value and that the domestic industry suffered injury attributable to the dumped imports. The contention based on manufacturing process differences and quality differences did not displace the finding that the imported goods and domestic goods were like articles.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellants and the challenge to the duty failed.

Issue (iii): Whether 2% handling charges could be added while computing landed value for determining injury margin, and whether the duty could be imposed in US dollar terms.

Analysis: No provision in the anti-dumping framework supported addition of 2% handling charges, and the customs valuation rules pointed only to the permissible landing charges structure. The findings gave no valid reason for the extra addition. The Tribunal also followed its earlier view that anti-dumping duty could properly be expressed in dollar terms.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant on exclusion of handling charges and on dollar denomination of duty.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were disposed of by deleting duty in one exporter's case, sustaining duty in the other exporters' cases, and revising the quantum and currency of duty where the computation was found to be erroneous.

Ratio Decidendi: Anti-dumping duty can be imposed only where dumping is established and injury is shown to be caused by such dumped imports, and the landed value for injury-margin computation cannot be inflated by an unsupported additional handling charge.

---