AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 761
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reto. In the application for condonation of delay, the appellants have given reasons for the delay by indicating that they could not obtain the list of interested parties from the Designated Authority (D.A.) on account of the concerned official in the D.A.'s office, who was in charge of the investigation in this case, having been transferred. Considering the reasons given, we condone the small delay of 10 days (beyond 90 days from the date of Customs Notification) in filing the appeal by the appellants. 2. The appellants have also filed an application for stay of operation of the final findings of the D.A and the Customs Notification issued pursuant thereto on the ground that they have a very good case on merits and that they have eve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are the sole producer of the subject goods in India at whose instance the anti-dumping duty was imposed and subsequently continued as a result of the sunset review. He states that the domestic industry is a monopolistic industry being the sole manufacturer and has had the protection of safeguard duty imposed in 1998 and subsequently the anti-dumping duty. Despite such protection, the competitiveness and efficiency of the domestic industry has not improved and it is not possible for it to meet even 50% of the total domestic demand. 6. The Ld. Advocate argues that the D.A. issued the disclosure statement on 13-7-09 and time was given only upto 17-7-09 for furnishing comments. He states that the D.A. has kept confidential all the releva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ri.), wherein it was held by the Tribunal that fixation of normal value is not challengeable by anyone except the exporters or manufacturers of the subject goods and the appellants in that case being importers had no locus standi to come in appeal before the Tribunal to question the correctness or otherwise of the normal value fixed by the D.A. 10. The Ld. Advocate states that the disclosure statement is issued with a view to correct the calculation with which the appellant-importer is not concerned. He also states that Rule 11 of the Anti Dumping Rules cannot be strictly applied for a likelihood determination under the sunset review. He also refers to the fact that there was price under selling, which justifies the D.A.'s findings. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e information provided for computation of the normal value such as consumption norms have been provided by the domestic industry, confidentiality maintained in regard to normal value by the D.A. cannot be faulted with. Secondly, as pointed out by the ld. Advocate for the domestic industry, and as held by the Tribunal in the case of AIIGMA (cited supra), the appellant importers do not have an inherent right to question the determination of the normal value. We also note in this regard that there is no challenge to the same concerned exporters/manufacturers. 14. We further find that the D.A. has carried out a detailed examination with reference to various factors and has come to the conclusion that the subject goods originating in or ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n assessed in the earlier section of this findings. In case of revocation of anti-dumping duty from subject countries (excluding Brazil), the imports from other countries attracting anti-dumping duty are likely to shift to subject countries (excluding Brazil). Therefore, there is a likelihood of continuous injury to the domestic industry from imports from subject countries (excluding Brazil)." The above finding of the D.A. cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. 16. As regards the contention regarding cumulation of imports, we are of the view that it has been rightly contended on behalf of the domestic industry that in a sunset review, only a likelihood determination is required to be made and in such a case, there is no need ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 90%. In a sunset review, the D.A. is examining a scenario which is already affected by the existing anti-dumping regime in force. It is bound to be different from the scenario at the time of original examination. In the sunset review, he has to do a likelihood determination as to whether there will be continuance or recurrence of injury if the anti-dumping duty is removed. In such a determination, the percentages fixed under Rule 11 read with Annexure-II (iii) cannot be of relevance as the anti-dumping duty would have brought down volume of dumped imports. For a likelihood determination under the sunset review which is prospective in nature, there cannot be any objection to cumulation of imports to determine likelihood of injury. In the i....