AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran: These three appeals are directed against the same impugned Final Findings dated 12.10.2015 of the Designated Authority (DA), Directorate General of Antidumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Notification No.61/2015-Customs (ADD) dated 1 1.12.2015 of Ministry of Finance. The said findings and Customs Notification are consequent sunset review of anti-dumping duty imposed on cold rolled flat products of stainless steel (subject goods) imported from China PR, Korea, EU, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand and USA (subject-countries). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the DA initiated investigation for AD duty on subject goods on 25.11.2008 based on application from domestic in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere is no serious injury or threat of serious injury to the DI in the period of investigation and hence, no protection is required under safeguard law. Hence, on same set of facts the DA could not have reached different conclusion. (d) the question that injury to DI is possibly caused by higher width of subject goods imported without AD duty and slit before marketed, has not been properly examined by DA. (e) the injury to DI, if any, is due to their higher fixed cost, not due to dumping of subject goods. 4. Ld. Counsel for DI supported the finding of the DA so far as imposition of AD duty is concerned. However, the DI is aggrieved by imposition of low AD duty on two exporters. These points are taken up later in this order. Regardin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Counsel submitted that the final finding is the outcome of sunset review and the emphasis is more on likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury to the DI in case of withdrawal of AD duty. While analyzing the parameters, through sunset review, the DA has to be carefully take into account the potential or possible injury in case of termination of AD duty. As such, the sunset review is different from the original investigation in these aspects. He further pleaded that the emphasis by the appellants on the findings of the DG (safeguards) is of no relevance as it is an admitted fact that the DG (safeguards) and the DA have different mandate for examination of import of subject goods. 7. Regarding appeal filed by the DA with reference ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the product covered under the present investigation. The periods covered were also not identical. We have carefully considered the final findings of the DA. It is seen that the subject goods continued to enter in the Indian market from the subject countries at substantially dumped price. Examination of the injury indicates that domestic industry continues to suffer injury on account of import at very low price from subject countries against which anti-dumping duties are in force. In terms of AD Rules, the DA is required to determine whether revocation of the AD duty would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. One relevant factor noticed is that the subject goods of higher width above 1250 mm. has increased during the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 12. Regarding the plea of the appeal nos. 3 representing domestic industry, specifically with reference to improper fixation of export price in respect of the POSCO, Korea/Thailand, we find that the DA has taken into account the relationship between the group companies of POSCO before arriving at the decision. The relevant findings are as below:- "46 In its post disclosure submissions the domestic industry has argued that nine of the cooperating exporters should be granted individual treatment as they have suppressed significant information with regard to their related parties involved in production and supply of the subject goods in various countries. It has been further argued that though two of the related importers of POSCO, Kor....