AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 752
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst final findings dated 10/10/2014 of the Designated Authority (the DA), Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Customs Notification No. 48/2014 - CUS (ADD) dated 11/12/2014 imposing anti-dumping duty (AD duty) on "clear float glass" (subject goods) imported from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. 2. The Indian manufacturers of subject goods (the DI) approached the DA for initiating anti-dumping investigation with reference to import of subject goods from the above-mentioned countries. The DA initiated the investigation and after following the various procedure as set out in Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (AD Rules) recommended for imposition of AD duty on import of subject goods. The impugned customs notification was issued for imposing such duty. 3. The learned Counsel for M/s Obeikan Glass Company, a producer/exporter of subject goods from Saudi Arabia, appellant, contested the final finding of the DA. Though in appeal the appellant took various grounds, the learned Counsel restricted his arguments mainly on two points. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her appellant is a producer/exporter of subject goods from Pakistan. We have perused the appeal filed. They have contested the impugned findings on non-disclosure of material facts, lack of objective analysis of injury when the DI has shown improved performance and lack of casual link between import and injury to DI. 7. We have heard the interested parties as above and also perused the appeal papers including written submissions carefully. The imposition of AD duty on subject goods is under challenge on various grounds. The producer/exporters of foreign country are against imposition whereas the DI is against improper quantification of injury and AD duty. We take up, issue wise, the arguments raised by the appellants. Non-disclosure of relied up on data, especially sourced from DGCI&S is one of the grounds. The reliability of the said data was also questioned. We find that the DA had sent questionnaire to elicit relevant information to various known exporters in subject countries and known importers/users in India. Request was made to DGCI&S to obtain details of imports for POI and proceeding three years. The same was obtained and relied upon. Spot verifications of information p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....producing float glass from April, 2011 and declared commercial production on 1^st July, 2011. The Company had achieved a capacity utilization of about *** % in POI. The Company has not projected any capacity utilization in the first/second year of operation in the project report. In the absence of such projection, the Authority holds that the capacity utilization achieved by Obeikan is reasonable and, therefore, it could be reasonably considered that the production had stabilized. (b) The Authority further notes that Obeikan had projected the capacity utilization of *** % in the third year of operations in its Project Report and as against this it, had achieved a capacity utilization of about ***% in 2013. This shows that the production of the company had stabilized during the POI itself and, therefore, it is reasonable to assume that it was not effected by start up operations. (c) The Authority notes that in the recent case of Plain Gypsum Plaster Boards originating in or exported from China PR, Indonesia, UAE, etc. cited by Obeikan, the concerned producer/exporter had achieved a capacity utilization of *** % as against *** % projected in the Project Report. Sinc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provided by the other co-operative exporter from Pakistan has indicated that volume is more than the de mini is level. The DA considered Pakistan as one of the subject countries for injury analysis we find that para (iii) of Annexure II provides for cumulative investigation in case of imports being from more than the country. We also note that one of the co-operating, other exporter (Ghani Glass) from Pakistan had not raised this issue in their appeal. Regarding material injury the DA noted that in spite of increased production and sales during POI, as compared to the base year, the DI's performance has declined in the POI. None of the other opposing interested parties brought out any reason with evidence for the injury suffered by DI due to "other factors". After analyzing all known factors the DA concluded that the injury suffered by the DI is due to dumped imports. 12. We have also considered the issues raised by the DI in their appeals against findings of the DA. It is claimed that producers in Saudi Arabia and UAE enjoy undue advantage regarding energy price due to Government intervention. Hence, the cost of subject goods cannot be accepted on its face value. However, D....