TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... metallurgical coke (subject goods) and appellant number two is an Association of Indian Mini Blast Furnace. Both the appellants are aggrieved by the recommendations of the Designated Authority resulting in the imposition of anti-dumping duty through Customs Notification dated 25/11/2016, on the subject goods, when imported from specified countries. The amount of anti-dumping duty leviable per metric tons of goods is specified in the said customs notification. 2. The appellants made identical submissions and prayed for setting aside both, the final findings of the DA and the customs notification, mentioned above. 3. Shri Adarsh Ramanujan, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted elaborately on various grounds to contest the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the subject goods. His arguments can be summarized as below :- (i) the DA has not properly examined the adequacy and correctness of information filed by the Domestic Industry (DI). The DI have not submitted various required details for consideration, details like sales volume, investment, networth, capital employed; methodology to arrive at normal value were not provided. There is no clarity on various detail....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I suffered no injury caused by alleged dumped imports of subject goods. The non- injurious price calculated by DA is not correct. The parameters by one of the DI (Gujarat NRE) have not been properly analyzed by the DA. The trend in the investment, capacity utilization of the DI indicate that the import of subject goods had no adverse impact on the DI. There is always import of subject goods. Loss of DI has not been properly assessed by the DA. There is no causal link between the injury to the DI and alleged dumped imports of subject goods. The DI suffered due to various reasons not attributable to import of subject goods. The global price of coking coal, which is the main raw material for metallurgical coke, are falling. As such, the reduction in the price of metallurgical coke is not due to dumping, but it is due to reduction in raw material price. The DI had inefficient production process, resulting in losses. There are various other contributory factors affecting the performance of DI and the same cannot be linked to import of subject goods. 4. Shri Suhail Nathani, the learned Counsel representing the Domestic Industry of subject goods, defended the action of DA and the custo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The financial losses and bankruptcy of Gujarat NSE is not relevant. It accounts for only about 20% of DI and around 10% of total Indian production, excluding captive producers. The imports from non-subject countries has no relevance for determining the injury due to dumped imports from subject countries. The share of import from subject countries with reference to total demand has increased over a period to reach more than 40% during POI. (d) The fall in coking coal price did result in fall of metallurgical coke price, however, the price fall in metallurgical coke is very steep. The imports, on such price is under cutting and puts increased pressure on Domestic Industry, to further reduce the prices to match the dumped prices. 5. Shri Ameet Singh, learned Counsel for the DA supported the final findings and the customs notification imposing AD duty on the subject goods. He drew our attention to various points recorded in the final findings by the DA, to answer the grounds raised by the appellant. Overall, he reiterated the arguments of the respondent Domestic Industry on the issues raised by the appellant. The scope of the subject goods was correctly considered by the D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rima facie, about the evidence submitted by the applicants the DA issued a notification dated 30/12/2015 initiating the anti dumping investigation concerning import of the subject goods in accordance with AD Rules. After completion of the investigation in terms of AD Rules and other regulations applicable, the final findings dated 20/10/2016 was issued by the DA. 9. We have perused the initiation notification dated 30/12/2015 and the final findings dated 20/10/2016 of the DA, carefully. The DA has examined the application for initiating the anti-dumping investigation and, upon prima facie satisfaction, commenced the investigation. Regarding the product under consideration and like articles the DA recorded the following findings :- "8. The product under consideration (PUC) in the present investigation is Low Ash Metallurgical Coke (Met Coke). The product under consideration does not include other Metallurgical Coke with high ash content which is in excess of 18%. 9. Low Ash Met Coke is produced by destructive distillation of coking coal in the absence/regulated presence of oxygen at high temperatures (ranging between 1100 to 1350 degree centigrade) causing the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lso notes that it does not require any specific technology to manufacture Met Coke with low or high ash content. The production of Met Coke is dependent upon the ash contained in the coking coal. Lower the ash content of coking coal, the lower ash content would be there in Met Coke produced and vice versa. Therefore, there is no case of the interested parties for any exclusion from the product scope under the investigation. 12. With regard to like article, Rule 2(d) of the Rules provide as under: "like article" means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation for being dumped in India or in the absence of such article, another article which although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the articles under investigation." 13. After considering the information on record, the Authority has determined that there is no known difference in the subject goods produced by the domestic industry and that imported from the subject countries. The subject goods produced by the domestic industry and the subject goods imported from the subject countries are comparable in terms of their ch....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India, i.e., manufacture of Met Coke for captive use and manufacture of Met Coke for marketing / sales. The manufacturers who are producing Met Coke for their captive use are being excluded from the purview of the current investigation as their production is not in competition with the imported subject goods. Further, the economics of producers for captive consumption and of producers for sale are very different. The former saves on the costs of marketing sales, inventory etc. The applicant has stated that there are some steel manufacturers who produce Met Coke for their captive consumption. The applicant has provided the details of the names of the steel producers as available having production of Met Coke for captive consumption, namely, Steel Authority of India Limited, Tata Steel Ltd., JSW Steel Ltd., Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., Bhushan Steel Ltd., Jayaswal Neco Industries Ltd., Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd., Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. and Usha Martin Ltd. The applicant has also provided the details from their respective annual reports for the above companies that there are either no sales of Met Coke by the major captive producers or the sales are ne....