TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1321
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mr. Bhargav Mansatta, Mr. Dhruv Gupta and Ms. Shivani Bhatnagar Advocates, Mr. Jinendra Singhvi, Consultant and Shri Sailendra Dubey, Chartered Accountant for the appellants Ms. Reena Khair, Shri Rajesh Sharma and Ms. Shreya Dahiya, for the Domestic Industry Mr. Ameet Singh and Ms. Albeen Wali, Advocates for the Designated Authority Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Authorised Representative for the Revenue. ORDER Anti-Dumping Appeal No. 51490 of 2021 has been filed by the Association of Man Made Fibre Industry of India [the appellant] with a prayer that "the final findings dated 30.07.2021 of the designated authority rendered in the Second Sunset Review be modified and it be held that there is a likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury in the event of expiry of duty". A further prayer has been made "to hold that anti- dumping duty on the subject goods needs to continue for further period of five years against subject countries". The appellant has also sought quashing of "the Customs Notification No. 44/2021-Customs (ADD) dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Central Government with a direction to the Central Government to issue a notification levying anti-dumping duty for a period o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1. This appellant has also been impleaded as respondent no. 10 in Anti-Dumping Appeal No. 51490 of 2021. 7. Anti-Dumping Appeal No. 51872 of 2021 has been filed by PT Asia Pacific Rayon. It claims to be a producer and exporter of the product in Indonesia, for which product anti-dumping duty was recommended to be withdrawn by the designated authority in the final findings dated 31.07.2021. The prayer in the appeal is "to hold that the rejection/non-consideration of the grounds raised in this appeal by the designated authority in the final findings dated 31.07.2021 is bad, perverse and incorrect, and to confirm the grounds raised in this appeal as additional reasons for reaching the recommendation". A further prayer is "to uphold the final findings dated 31.07.2021 insofar as it recommends the withdrawal of the anti-dumping duty". This appellant has also been impleaded as respondent no. 5 in Anti-Dumping Appeal No. 51490 of 2021. 8. Anti-Dumping Appeal No. 50570 of 2022 has been filed by PT South Pacific Viscose, Indonesia stating therein that it has a plant in Indonesia to manufacture the product under consideration and that it has been exporting the said product to India. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g and injury, as was reasonably available to the domestic industry and thus discharged its obligations under section 9A (5) of the Tariff Act read with rule 23(1B) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 [Anti-Dumping Rules]; 11. A notification dated 22.02.2021 was thereafter issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry initiating sunset review anti-dumping investigation to review the need for continued imposition of the duties in force in respect of the subject goods originating in or exported from the subject countries and to examine whether the expiry of such duty was likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry. Paragraphs 16,18,21,22 & 23 of the said notification are reproduced below: "Initiation of sunset review investigation 16. On the basis of the duly substantiated written application by or on behalf of the domestic industry, and having satisfied itself, on the basis of the prima facie evidence submitted by the domestic industry, substantiating likelihood of continuation/recurrence of dumping and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alled upon the exporters to provide not only company specific information, but also details of total China/Indonesia production, sales of other producers in the domestic market, total demand in China/Indonesia, other producer's exports to third countries, etc. As regards China, the designated authority sent the exporter questionnaires to twenty eight companies in China, out of which only one company, Sateri (Fujian) Fibre Co., Ltd. filed its questionnaire response. It was declared in the response, that Sateri Group consisted of five companies concerned with the product under consideration in China and one entity in Indonesia, namely, PT Asia Pacific Rayon. As regards Indonesia, two producer exporters filed response, namely, PT Asia Pacific Rayon (part of Sateri Group) and PT South Pacific Viscose. 14. An oral hearing was held by the designated authority on 09.07.2021, pursuant to which written and rejoinder submissions were filed by the parties. Verification of the information submitted by the interested parties was also carried out by the designated authority. 15. In terms of rule 16 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, a disclosure statement was issued by the designated authority, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supplied) 17. The interested parties, including the appellant filed their comments to the disclosure statement and, thereafter, the designated authority, in the final findings dated 31.07.2021, concluded that there was no justification for recommending continuation of anti-dumping duty. The conclusion is reproduced below: "M. Conclusion 154. Having regard to the contentions raised, information provided, submissions made and facts available before the Authority as recorded in these findings and on the basis of the determination of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry made hereinabove, the Authority concludes that: a. Considering the normal value and export price for subject goods, the dumping margins for the subject goods from each of the subject countries have been determined, and the margins are significant. There is a likelihood of continuation of dumping from subject countries. b. Considering various parameters relating to material injury, the Authority notes that the volume of dumped imports from the subject countries have declined in the POI as compared to the previous two financial years. The domestic industry has seen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by sub-sections (1) and (5) of section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), the Central Government revokes the anti-dumping duty imposed on "Viscose Staple Fibre excluding Bamboo Fibre", falling under tariff item 5504 10 00 of the First Schedule to the said Act, originating in or exported from People's Republic of China and Indonesia, and imported into India and hereby rescinds the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 43/2016-Customs (ADD) dated the 8th August, 2016, published in the Gazette of India. Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) vide number G.S.R. 777(E), dated the 8th August, 2016, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission. Note: The principal notification No. 43/2016-Customs (ADD) dated the 8th August, 2016 was published vide number G.S.R. 777(E), dated the 8th August, 2016 and last amended by notification No. 39/2021-Customs (ADD) dated the 30th June, 2021 published vide number G.S.R. 455(E), dated the 30th June, 2021." 20. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant assisted by Ms. Reena Khair, Shri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attractiveness of the Indian market. The export price to third countries are much lower than the export prices from the subject countries to India. Hence, on the expiry / revocation of the anti-dumping duty, the possibility of diversion of substantial quantities to India is extremely high. Thus, if anti-dumping duty is revoked, India becomes the most attractive destination for dumping, since India yields much better prices; (v) Likelihood of injury is also established from the fact that about 62% of the exports from China, and about 24% exports from Indonesia to India, are below the NIP of domestic industry. A significant quantity of exports made during the period of investigation are already at injurious prices. Despite noting this fact, the designated authority fails to draw the conclusion that future prices would also be below NIP and would cause significant injury to the domestic industry; (vi) In the present case, there is no dispute that there is continued dumping by the subject countries in India, despite imposition of anti-dumping duty. The long period of levy is not on account of the appellant, but is occasioned by the fact, that there is a long history o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppears to have collected fresh information from the Sateri Group, not shared with domestic industry, to conclude that there is no surplus capacity with the Sateri Group. The stage for collection and verification of information under rule 6 read with rule 8 is over prior to the issuance of disclosure statement under rule 16. The designated authority could not have accepted new evidence at the fag end of the investigations, that also without making available such evidence to opposing interested parties, for concluding that there is no surplus capacity available with the Sateri Group; (x) In the final findings, it is held by the designated authority that the capacity utilisation of the Sateri Group was low, as only the first line of production had started in December 2019, and the production stabilised in post period of investigation. On this basis, the authority concluded that there was no surplus capacity with the Sateri Group. Even if this were to be accepted for the sake of argument, it was incumbent on the authority to ascertain whether the production of the Sateri Group in the post period of investigation period was exported to India or to other third countries, and wha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Pacific Rayon is high due to the covid pandemic. The designated authority failed to consider that Covid Pandemic affected the production as well as the demand for the products. In a situation of declining demand, it was imperative for the designated authority to ascertain whether there were alternate markets for the products once the unit resumes operation at full capacity. The designated authority based its conclusions on extraneous factors, not relevant to the proceedings; (xv) In the course of the investigations, including up to the stage of issuance of the disclosure statement, the designated authority based its conclusions on the Hawkins Report and the Wood Mackenzie Red Book. These reports which were reliable in the disclosure statement became unreliable in the final findings, without assigning any reason for the same, though these reports have been relied upon by the designated authority in other investigations; (xvi) The designated authority failed to consider that the imports from the subject countries are at dumped prices. The dumping margin is significant in the range of 10% to 70%. Even more than 80% to 90% of the exports to third countries by subjec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er to extend period under section 9A(5) of the Tariff Act could only be exercised during the life of the duties. Gap in continuation of duty invalidated continuation of duty assuming that the earlier notification dated 26.07.2010 was valid till 25.07.2015, a hiatus was created in continuation of duties when the notification dated 06.08.2015 was issued, which extended the anti-dumping duty till 25.07.2016. In other words, there was no duty between 26.07.2015 and 05.08.2015. It is settled law that non-existent levy could not have been extended in the exercise of power under section 9A(5) of the Tariff Act; (v) The second extension of duties by notification dated 08.08.2016, for similar reasons, is bad in law as duties had lapsed on 25.07.2016. The earlier notification dated 06.08.2015 extended the duties till 25.07.2016 only. In other words, there was no duty between 26.07.2016 and 07.08.2016; (vi) Thus, the relief sought by the appellant for the continued imposition of anti-dumping duty cannot be granted as the continuation of duty was already without authority of law at the time of initiation and final findings in the impugned investigation; (vii) The app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of products and did not contain exclusive information with respect to the product under consideration. Further, no effort was made by the appellant to ever justify that the information relating to VSF as a whole can be taken for making an objective examination of the product under consideration, which was only one of the types of VSF; and (xvii) In any case, the evidence and arguments presented by the domestic industry were only with respect to the capacities in China. The only argument advanced by the appellant was that the capacity of one producer in China cannot be equated with the total capacity of production under consideration in China. In other words, no argument was made by the appellant to establish any factor of likelihood of injury against the imports from Indonesia. Thus, as far as Indonesia is concerned, the appellant failed to submit any evidence establishing the likelihood of injury. 22. Shri Bhargav Mansatta, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3, 5 & 8 assisted by Shri Dhruv Gupta and Ms. Shivani Bhatnagar made the following submissions : (i) Anti-dumping duty cannot be continued beyond 10 years in the absence of special circumstan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indings note that in absence of guidelines under Anti-Dumping Rules regarding likelihood analysis to be conducted in a sunset review, Annexure II, paragraph (vii) of the Anti-Dumping Rules should be applicable for conducting likelihood analysis. The final findings issued by the designated authority analysed all the criteria mentioned in Annexure II, paragraph (vii) of the Anti-Dumping Rules and also other relevant factual information for examining likelihood of injury; (vi) Various interested parties participating in the investigation raised concerns regarding the authenticity of Hawkins Wright Report provided by the applicant for the purpose of likelihood analysis. Since there are only three producers of subject goods in Indonesia namely (i) PT Asia Pacific Rayon (ii) PT South Pacific Viscose & (iii) PT Indo Bharat Rayon and all these three producers had participated and provided relevant information in the subject investigation, the designated authority deemed it appropriate to rely on information provided by the participating producers rather than on the above-mentioned report for the purpose of determining surplus capacity in subject countries; and (vii) The d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period upto five years and such further period shall commence from the date of order of such extension. The provisions of sub-section (5) of section 9A of the Tariff Act are reproduced below: "9A(5) The anti-dumping duty imposed under this section shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition: Provided that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period upto five years and such further period shall commence from the date of order of such extension: Provided further that where a review initiated before the expiry of the aforesaid period of five years has not come to a conclusion before such expiry, the anti-dumping duty may continue to remain in force pending the outcome of such a review for a further period not exceeding one year." 28. Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules deals with review and it is reproduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t all relevant facts, including the volume of dumped imports, their effect on price in the domestic market for like articles and the consequent effect of such imports on domestic producers of such articles and in accordance with the principles set out in Annexure II to these rules." 30. Rule 11(2) refers to the principles set out in Annexure II to the Anti-Dumping Rules which deal with the principles for determination of injury and the relevant portion of the said Annexure is reproduced below: Principles for determination of injury "The designated authority while determining the injury or threat of material injury to domestic industry or material retardation of the establishment of such an industry, hereinafter referred to as "injury" and causal link between dumped imports and such injury, shall inter alia, take following principles under consideration - (i) xxxxxxxxx (ii) While examining the volume of dumped imports, the said authority shall consider whether there has been a significant increase in the dumped imports, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in India. With regard to the affect of the dumped imports on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Duration and Review of Anti-Dumping Duties and Price Undertakings 11.1 An anti-dumping duty shall remain in force only as long as and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury. 11.2 The authorities shall review the need for the continued imposition of the duty, where warranted, on their own initiative or, provided that a reasonable period of time has elapsed since the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty, upon request by any interested party which submits positive information substantiating the need for a review. Interested parties shall have the right to request the authorities to examine whether the continued imposition of the duty is necessary to offset dumping, whether the injury would be likely to continue or recur if the duty were removed or varied, or both. If, as a result of the review under this paragraph, the authorities determine that the anti-dumping duty is no longer warranted, it shall be terminated immediately." "11.3 Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2, any definitive anti-dumping duty shall be terminated on a date not later than five years from its imposition (or from the date of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....present appellant, which is an association, to file the appeal. 34. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant however pointed out that it is the appellant association which had filed an application seeking initiation of the sunset review investigation stating clearly that Grasim Industries, which was the domestic industry, was the only producer of the subject goods in India. It was further stated that the applicant considers that the cessation of the present anti-dumping duty was likely to lead to continuation of dumping and injury to the domestic industry. It was also stated in the application that Grasim Industries had provided the required information and should be considered as the domestic industry. It was on the basis of this duly substantiated application that a sunset review investigation was initiated by notification dated 22.02.2021. The designated authority, in its final findings dated 31.07.2021, recommended withdrawal of anti-dumping duty earlier imposed by the notification dated 08.07.2016. Paragraph 1 of the Memo of Appeal mentions that the appeal was being filed against the final findings of the designated authority as also the notification issued by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... general rule carved out by way of proviso to section 9A(5) of the Tariff Act. Learned counsel pointed out that anti-dumping duty was originally imposed by notification 26.07.2010 and the same has been in force for more than ten years and, therefore, in the absence of special circumstances, the appellant cannot seek continuance of anti-dumping duty for another period of five years. 37. It is not possible to accept this contention advanced on behalf of respondent no's. 3, 5 & 8. Neither article 11.3 of the 1994 Agreement nor section 9A(5) of the Tariff Act require any existence of special circumstances for extension of anti-dumping duty beyond a period of five years. The pre-requisites for every extension of duty, whether for five years or upto five years, are the same and they are that there should be a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. 38. Shri Jitendra Singh learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that Anti-Dumping Appeal No. 50571 of 2022 has been filed by respondent no. 6-PT South Pacific Viscose, Indonesia to assail the final findings dated 08.07.2016 of the designated authority and the notification dated 08.08.2016 issued by the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rplus capacities with the responding producers/exporters in the subject countries, which capacities could be used to increase the exports to India in the event duty was revoked. The Central Government thereafter issued a notification dated 12.08.2021 rescinding the earlier notification dated 08.08.2016, which had imposed anti-dumping duty. 43. It has, therefore, to be examined whether the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury would warrant continuation of anti-dumping duty for a further period of five years. 44. In regard to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, the designated authority noted the four factors contained in clause (vii) of Annexure II of the Anti-Dumping Rules, as also other relevant factors that could have a bearing on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and its consequent injury to the domestic industry. In this connection, it examined the import of subject goods from subject countries, the surplus capacities available with the Sateri Group and PT South Pacific Viscose, Indonesia. It noted that the though Sateri Group had surplus capacities available with it, but the capacity during the period of investigatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tent of dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry during the period of investigation is not of much relevance, but still it has been relied upon to a great extent by the designated authority. 48. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have refuted the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and it has been submitted that the designated authority, after a careful consideration of the materials on record, recommended withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on import of subject goods from the subject countries. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that all the appropriate factors mentioned in paragraph (vii) of Annexure II of the Anti-Dumping Rules have been analysed in the final findings of the designated authority. 49. Paragraph (vii) of Annexure II reads as follows: "(vii) A determination of a threat of material injury shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility. The change in circumstances which would create a situation in which the dumping would cause injury must be clearly foreseen and imminent. In making a determination regarding the existence of a threat of material i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th respect to the question whether dumping is likely to occur in the event that the anti-dumping duties are removed, the D.A. has to consider relevant economic facts which might indicate that in the event the anti-dumping duty is removed, dumping will recur. With respect to the injury determination, if the anti-dumping duty has had the desired effect, the condition of the domestic industry would be expected to have improved during the period the anti-dumping duty was in effect. Therefore, the assessment whether injury will continue, or recur, would entail a counter-factual analysis of future events, based on projected levels of dumped imports, prices, and impact on domestic producers. Thus the D.A. has to address the question as to whether the domestic industry is likely to be materially injured again, if duties are lifted. 14. Sunset review entails a likelihood determination in which present levels of dumping is obviously not so relevant as is the likelihood of continuance or recurrence of dumping. Moreover, during the investigation period, the anti-dumping duty would be in force and hence, the current level of dumping may be non-existent or minimal. The exporters under i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there is imminent danger of the material injury to the domestic industry. The inquiry is limited to the change in the various parameters like the normal value; export price, dumping margin, fixation of non-injurious price and injury to domestic industry. The sunset review is undertaken for the purpose of not for imposition of anti-dumping duty but to see whether the revocation of such anti-dumping duty, dumping would increase and whether the domestic industry will suffer." (emphasis supplied) 56. In Borax Morarji Limited vs. Designated Authority [2007 (215) E.L.T. 33 (Tri. - Del.), CESTAT], the Tribunal noted that: "10. With respect to the injury determination, if the anti-dumping duty had the desired effect, the condition of the domestic industry would be expected to have improved during the period the antidumping duty was in effect. Therefore, the assessment whether injury will continue, or recur, would entail a counter-factual analysis of future events, based on projected levels of dumped imports, prices, and impact on domestic producers. Thus the D.A. has to address the question as to whether the domestic industry is likely to be materially injured again, if duti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs from the date of its publication, but an exception has been culled out namely that the designated authority can extend the period provided the designated authority comes to a conclusion upon a duly substantiated request by the domestic industry that the expiry of the anti-dumping duty would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry. It also provides that rule 11 of the Anti-Dumping Rules would also be applicable to sunset reviews and rule 11 of the Anti-Dumping Rules requires the designated authority to determine threat of injury to the domestic industry taking into account all relevant facts in accordance with the principles set out in Annexure II of the Rules. Clause (vii) of Annexure II provides that a determination of a threat of material injury shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility and that the change in circumstances which would create a situation in which the dumping would cause injury must be clearly foreseen and imminent. This has also been provided in the 1994 Agreement. It, therefore, follows that under the aforesaid statutory scheme, the designated authority is mandated to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts to third countries by APR and SPV are at prices below the NIP." 60. Learned senior counsel for the appellant also submitted that the likelihood of diversion of exports from other markets to India has to be examined with reference to the price attractiveness of the Indian market. In this connection learned senior counsel pointed out that the designated authority itself found that 55-65 percent of the exports to third countries by the participating producer/exporter from China PR are at prices below the export price to India and in the case of Indonesia 65-75 percent of exports to third countries by PT Asia Pacific Rayon are at prices below the export prices to India and 85-95 percent of exports to third countries by PT South Pacific Viscose are at prices below the export price to India. It is for this reason that the learned senior counsel submitted that since the export price to third countries are much lower than the export prices from the subject countries to India, there is a good possibility of diversion of substantial quantities to India on expiry of the anti-dumping duty. Thus, if the anti-dumping duty, according to the learned senior counsel, is revoked India would bec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... % of imports below NSR % 63% 34% 62. These are some of the relevant factors which were required to be examined by the designated authority to determine whether it was necessary to extend the period of anti-dumping duty for a further period of five years after cessation of the existing anti-dumping duty, but they have not been taken into consideration in the final findings. 63. What also transpires from the final findings is that continued dumping by the subject countries in India has continued despite the imposition of anti-dumping duty. The designated authority, while examining the aspect of 'likelihood of injury', recorded a finding that likelihood or recurrence of injury to the domestic industry was not 'strong enough to warrant continuation of duties beyond 11 years'. The designated authority further held that 'there are in insignificant surplus capacities with the responding producers/exporters in the subject countries, which can be used to increase their exports to India in event of revocation of duty. What was required to be examined by the designated authority was whether withdrawal of anti-dumping duty would lead to continuance or recurrence of dumping as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l findings dated 08.07.2016 and the relevant portion is reproduced below: "122. In case of China also there are huge production capacities in the country. The total Indian demand is in the range of 300,000 MT which is less than 10% of the total installed capacity in China. In case of cessation of Anti-Dumping Duties, the Indian market will become very attractive to the exporters and there is every likelihood that imports at dumped prices from the subject countries will further intensify." 66. The findings recorded in the earlier sunset review assume importance unless it is demonstrated, as a fact, that the surplus capacity in China has reduced sufficiently, more particularly when the data furnished by the Sateri group is not representative of China as a whole. In fact it has been pointed is that the capacities available with the Sateri group alone are nearly 4.90 times of the total demand in India for the subject goods. The Indian market will, therefore, become very attractive for this group, in case of cessation of anti-dumping duty. 67. The designated authority had, in this connection, relied upon the Hawkins Report and the Wood Mackenzie Red Book in the disclosure....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Surplus capacities 16% 23% 36% 23% 18% B Indonesia 1. Capacity 600 635 875 875 875 2. Production 374 395 312 395 407 3. Surplus capacities 226 240 563 480 468 4. Surplus capacities 38% 38% 64% 55% 53% 73. According to the appellant, the information contained in the aforesaid two reports have been summarized in the aforesaid table and that even otherwise the capacity of the exporting country is in the knowledge of the foreign exporters and producers. The claim made by the domestic industry based on these reports could have been rebutted by the exporters by providing evidence regarding the actual capacity in the subject countries. In fact the exporters questionnaire part-II requires the participating exporters and producers to not only provide information relating to their own production and sales but also of other producers in domestic market. However, the foreign exporters failed to provide such information. 74. The designated authority, therefore, completely mis-directed itself in restricting the surplus capacity of the producers to those who had exported the goods duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration was wrongly accepted by the designated authority. 81. This submission cannot be accepted. The applicant had requested for imposition of anti-dumping duty on a narrower scope of the product under consideration and had not made any claim for enlargement of the product under consideration in the sunset review proceedings. It is the prerogative of the domestic industry to make a claim for imposition of duty on the types of product and neither section 9A (5) of the Tariff Act nor rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules bars the designated authority from restricting the scope of the product under consideration in a sunset review. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to the foreign exporters if the product under consideration is restricted in a sunset review and in fact the foreign exporters would benefit if the anti-dumping duty is not levied on the products excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. The designated authority in the final findings had rejected this contention of the respondents and the observations are as follows: "14........ In the application for current sunset review investigation, the applicant requested Authority to exclude Moda....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 11.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement which sets the applicable requirement for a Review Investigation reads as under: "An anti-dumping duty shall remain in force only as long as and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury." Similarly, Rule 23 (1) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995 is an umbrella provision for review investigations which puts forth an obligation on the Authority that an anti-dumping duty imposed under Section 9A of the Act, shall remain in force only for the time period and to the extent it is necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury. Ordinary meaning of the word extent is "point, degree, or limit" and the meaning of the term necessary is "needed to be done, achieved, or present; essential." Thereby Rule 23(1) provides for a limitation on the Authority while carrying out a Sunset Review Investigation under Rule 23(1B) that an extension of the duty/imposition of duty is an exceptional circumstance and this extension can only be done to the extent necessary to counteract dumping causing injury. In consonance with the above Rules and as per the request made by applicant to exclude M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had already lapsed; (ii) The scope of the product under consideration was unilaterally altered in the sunset review investigation; (iii) The designated authority committed an error in holding that there was a likelihood of continuation and recurrence of injury; and (iv) The designated authority committed an error in this regarding the findings recorded by the Competition Commission of India against the domestic industry. 84. The first, second and third submissions have already been considered and rejected. 85. The fourth contention is that the findings recorded by the Competition Commission of India against the domestic industry have been disregarded. 86. This submission cannot be accepted. The findings recorded by the Competition Commission of India would have no relevance when the designated authority proceeds to take a decision in the context of imposition of anti-dumping duty for the reason that the Tariff Act and the Competition Act, 2002 operate in different fields. This apart, the period examined by the Competition Commission for determining anti-competitive behavior was upto financial year 2016-17, whereas the injury period in the sunset ....