Tribunal Upholds Anti-Dumping Duties on EPDM Imports, Denies Appeal

The tribunal admitted Appeal No. C/22/2000-AD despite a 167-day delay. The Designated Authority's classification of domestic and exported articles as 'like articles' was upheld due to lack of evidence supporting quality differences claimed by the appellants. Anti-dumping duties on EPDM imports from Japan were recommended based on material injury to the domestic industry, which suffered losses from dumped imports impacting profitability. The tribunal modified duty imposition from rupee to dollar terms but upheld the Designated Authority's order imposing anti-dumping duties, leading to the disposal of the appeals in accordance with these decisions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Delay in filing Appeal No. C/22/2000-AD.
2. Quality difference between domestic and exported articles.
3. Injury to domestic industry due to imports from Japan.
4. Determination of anti-dumping duty in rupee or dollar terms.

Delay in filing Appeal No. C/22/2000-AD:
The appeal faced a delay of 167 days, but after reviewing the grounds and reasons for the delay, the tribunal decided to admit the appeal by condoning the delay.

Quality difference between domestic and exported articles:
The appellants argued that the domestic and exported articles were of different grades, but failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. The Designated Authority's decision to treat them as 'like articles' was upheld as the appellants did not substantiate the alleged quality differences.

Injury to domestic industry due to imports from Japan:
The Designated Authority recommended anti-dumping duties on EPDM imports from Japan, citing material injury to the domestic industry. The tribunal found that the domestic industry suffered losses due to dumped imports at lower prices, impacting its ability to recover costs and earn profits. The increase in imports from Japan and the dumping practices were deemed detrimental to the domestic industry.

Determination of anti-dumping duty in rupee or dollar terms:
The tribunal modified the duty imposition from rupee to dollar terms, following previous rulings. The duty amounts for different companies were adjusted accordingly. Despite this modification, the Designated Authority's order imposing anti-dumping duties was upheld, and the appeals were disposed of in line with these decisions.

---