Anti-dumping duty must track the actual producer, while a rupee-based minimum duty and disclosure challenge were rejected.

Anti-dumping duty must be applied with reference to the known exporter or producer for whom a separate dumping margin has been fixed, and goods identifiable as that producer's product cannot be charged at a residuary rate. A minimum anti-dumping duty expressed in Indian rupees is not permissible where the duty has been determined in foreign-currency terms, so a rupee floor amount cannot stand. Confidential material in anti-dumping proceedings need not be disclosed, injury findings may be sustained on the evidence, and inclusion of tow within the investigation was upheld because it was treated as acrylic fibre and was convertible into fibre with minimal processing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anti-dumping duty had to be applied exporter-wise or could be levied at the residuary rate irrespective of the actual producer; (ii) whether minimum anti-dumping duty in rupee terms was permissible; (iii) whether withholding confidential material, the finding on injury, and inclusion of tow within the investigation were legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether anti-dumping duty had to be applied exporter-wise or could be levied at the residuary rate irrespective of the actual producer.

Analysis: Anti-dumping duty is required to be determined with reference to the known exporter or producer for whom a separate margin of dumping has been fixed. Where the imported goods are identifiable as the product of a particular producer, the applicable rate follows that producer's determined margin, even if the export is routed through a trading house. Treating all such imports at the residuary rate disregards the basis on which the dumping margin was fixed.

Conclusion: The duty had to be applied with reference to the actual producer, and the residuary rate could not be applied to goods identifiable as the produce of the named Japanese producers.

Issue (ii): Whether minimum anti-dumping duty in rupee terms was permissible.

Analysis: The applicable anti-dumping duty was required to be expressed in US dollar terms, and the imposition of a minimum duty in Indian rupees was not permissible in law. The recommendation to impose a floor amount per kilogram therefore could not stand.

Conclusion: The minimum anti-dumping duty component was unlawful and was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether withholding confidential material, the finding on injury, and inclusion of tow within the investigation were legally sustainable.

Analysis: Information supplied confidentially in anti-dumping proceedings is protected and need not be disclosed to other parties. The material on record also supported injury to the domestic industry, as the apparent profits were attributable to loan waivers and accounting relief rather than real commercial performance. The inclusion of tow was justified because it was treated as acrylic fibre by the exporters and was convertible into fibre with minimal processing, making the scope of investigation sustainable.

Conclusion: These objections failed, and the findings on confidentiality, injury, and scope of investigation were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained with modification only to the extent of producer-specific application of duty and rejection of the minimum duty component, while the remaining challenges were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Anti-dumping duty must be fixed and applied with reference to the individual known exporter or producer for whom dumping margins are determined, confidential information in anti-dumping proceedings is protected from disclosure, and a minimum anti-dumping duty in rupee terms is not permissible when the duty has been determined in foreign-currency terms.

---