J 2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 132 4174stkabirnavr Gmailcom 20230116 160514 1 20

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Monday, January 16, 2023

Printed For: Karma Nimit Shah, Gujarat National Law University - Koba
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 132
In the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal†

(BEFORE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT, C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) AND RACHNA GUPTA,
MEMBER (JUDICIAL))
Jindal Saw Ltd. … Appellant;

Versus
Designated Authority, Directorate General of Antidumping & Allied
Duties … Respondent.
Anti Dumping Appeal No. 52172 of 2019‡
Decided on July 14, 2020, [Date of Hearing : 06 January, 2020]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Balbir Singh, Shri Akshay Soni, Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocates, for the
Appellant;
Shri Ameet Singh and Ms Albeena Walia, Advocate, for the Respondents;
Shri Rakesh Kumar, Authorized Representative (DR), Advocate, for the Department.
FINAL ORDER NO._50723_/2020
C.L. MAHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL):— This appeal has been filed by the appellant
against the Final findings dated 01 April, 2019 of the Designated Authority, Director
General of Trade Remedies1 .
2. The appellant made an application for continuation of Anti-Dumping Duty under
the second sunset review under Rule 23(1B) of the Customs Tariff (Identification,
Assessment and Collection) of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for
Determining Injury Rules, 19952 on import of Ductile Iron Pipes3 originating in or
exported from China PR. This application was rejected by the Designated Authority by
the above said Final findings dated 01 April 2019.
3. It is a matter of record that the appellant is engaged in the business of
manufacture of Ductile Iron Pipes and products. The appellant made an application
under Rule 5 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995 for initiation of Anti-Dumping
investigation into imports of DI Pipes originating in or exported from China. In the
beginning of 2006. the Designated Authority started investigation by issuing a
notification dated 24 February, 2006 with respect to Import of DI pipes from China PR.
The Designated Authority vide its Final findings dated 23 August, 2007 recommended
imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty upon the imports of DI pipes from China PR for a
period of five years. In pursuance to the recommendation of Designated Authority, the
Ministry of Finance issued a Customs Notification dated 14 September 2007 levying
Anti-Dumping Duty for a period of five years.
4. The appellant filed an application under Rule 23(1B) of Anti-Dumping Rules,
1995 for initiation of a sunset review investigation for continuation of Anti-Dumping
Duty for a further period of 5 years vide letter dated 07 September, 2012. The
Designated Authority initiated action as stipulated under Rule 23(1B) for continuing
investigation for first sunset review investigation vide its initiation Notification dated
07 September, 2012. The Designated Authority recommended continuation of Anti-
Dumping Duty for a further period of 5 years vide Final findings dated 04 September,
2013. The Ministry of Finance accepted the recommendation of the Designated
Authority and issued a Notification dated 10 October, 2013 whereunder Anti-Dumping
Duty was directed to continue for a further period of 5 years till 09 October, 2018.
5. In March, 2018, the appellant once against approached the Designated Authority
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
with a duly substantiated application for initiation of a second sunset review

investigation under Rule 23(1B) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. It is a matter of
record that the appellant vide letter dated 14 May, 2018 submitted certain additional
evidences/submissions to prove that the cessation of existing Anti-Dumping Duty
would lead to the continuation/recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic
industries if the import of DI pipes was allowed from China PR without Anti-Dumping
duty. The Designated Authority after conducting a hearing on 15 May, 2018, issued an
order dated 17 May, 2018 that there was no need to initiate the sunset review
concerning import of DI pipes originating in or exported from China.
6. The appellant, feeling aggrieved by the decisions of the Designated Authority and
Finance Ministry, filed a Special Civil Application No. 12368 before the Gujarat High
Court for directing the Designated Authority to initiate the second sunset review
investigation in the matter. The High Court by judgement dated 26 September, 2018
directed the Government of India and the Designated Authority to decide the
application afresh. However, the earlier levied Anti-Dumping Duty was directed to
continue till a decision was taken.
7. It transpires that since no decision was taken, the appellant moved another
Special Civil Application requesting for issuing an immediate direction to the
concerned authorities for implementing the judgement dated 26 September, 2018.
The Gujarat High Court vide its judgement dated 08 October, 2018, directed the
Designated Authority and the Ministry of Finance to take necessary follow up action of
its judgement dated 26 September, 2018. After the orders of the Gujarat High Court,
the Designated Authority vide Notification initiated the second sunset review
investigation concerning imports of the DI pipes from China PR. It is a matter of
record that in the meanwhile Ministry of Finance issued a Notification dated 09
October, 2018 whereunder the Anti-Dumping Duty was further extended on import of
DI pipes from China PR for further period of six months up to 09 April, 2019. On 01
April, 2019, the Designated Authority issued Final findings concluding that the
continuation of the existing anti-dumping duties on the subject goods was not
warranted.
8. Being aggrieved by the said Final findings of the Designated Authority, the
appellant again filed a Special Civil Application No. 6896 of 2019 before the Gujarat
High Court. The High Court vide its two interim orders extended the imposition of Anti
-Dumping Duty up to 23 June, 2019. Accordingly, the last notification was issued on
09 May, 2019 for continuation of Anti-Dumping Duty up to 23 June, 2019.
9. In the above background, the contention of the appellant is that the impugned
Final findings dated 01 April, 2019 issued by the Designated Authority concluding that
continuation of Anti-Dumping Duty is not warranted on DI pipes imported from China
PR is perverse in law, inconsistent with the 1995 Rules and suffers from total non-
application of mind to the facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the
appellant. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellant that the Designated
Authority could not have kept the data concerning the construction of normal value for
calculation of dumping margin and its methodology adopted in construction of normal
value and dumping margin as confidential as the Designated Authority on its own
cannot claim confidentiality under Rule 7 of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995 as
has been held by the Supreme Court in Reliance Industries v. Union of India reported
in [(2006) 202 ELT 23 (SC)].
10. It is also contended by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that
the Designated Authority while reaching the conclusion regarding import price in its
Final findings had recorded that the import data was unreliable due to misclassification
of import item, which apparently in its own words was not for a like article. It is,
therefore, submitted that inspite of said observations, the Designated Authority made
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
adjustments to such import price to calculate the export price. Thus, if the import data
itself was not reliable, the import price can not be reliable and the Designated
Authority could not have calculated the import price relying on such unworthy import
data.
11. It has further been submitted that there is a contradiction between the
conclusions reached by the Designated Authority in the first sunset review, and the
present sunset review though in almost identical circumstances. The appellant had
provided a chart comparing the conclusion and methodology of Designated Authority
in the first sunset review and the present one. The comparison between the finding of
the first sunset review and the findings in the impugned sunset review is as under:
Issue wise comparison of the analysis carried out in the 1st (earlier
sunset review and the impugned Final Findings.)
Determination of normal value
1st Sunset review The authority relied on the international prices of major
Findings raw material along with the consumption norms,
conversion cost and SGA of the most efficient domestic
producer. Profit @5% on the cost of production has been
added to arrive at the constructed normal value. By
adopting this method, the constructed normal value was
determined.
Present Sunset review As part of the proceedings in this investigation, the
Findings Authority had sent questionnaires to the known
exporters/producers from the subject country advising
them to provide information in the form and manner
prescribed. There has been no response to the
questionnaire nor has there been any submission by any of
the Chinese producers/exports. In the absence of
cooperation from the Chinese exporters/producers, the
Authority determines to construct the normal value on the
basis of facts available.
The constructed normal value so determined is as Rs.***
per MT (USD*** per MT)
Submissions of the The methodology used for the computation of normal
appellant value has not been disclosed to the petitioner as against
the full disclosure of methodology in the earlier case.
Determination of export price
1 st
Sunset review The Authority notes that there are no exports of the
Findings subject goods to India from the subject country in the
entire injury investigation period including the POI and the
post POI. In the absence of exports to India by any of the
Chinese exporters including the responding
producers/exporters SGPL from China, the Authority has
not been able to determine the ex-factory export price for
the POI and the post POI period.
Present Sunset review The Authority notes that imports of subject goods from
Findings China during POI is to the tune of 73 MT at Rs. 1,54,000/-
per MT. It is further noted that the price of import is
abnormal which is established by the fact that DI is selling
the subject goods at approx. Rs.*** per MT only. It is
noted that the import statistics of this item points to
either mis-classification of the import item or it is not the
like article. However, the Authority has calculated the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
export price based on the available import data. Export

price has been adjusted for ocean freight, marine
insurance, port expenses, commission, inland freight and
indirect taxes (VAT) which may have been incurred by the
exporter for exporting material to India, in order to put
normal value and export price at the same level of trade.
The export price to be determined is as Rs.*** per MT.
Submissions of the In the present case, the Authority, despite noting that the
appellant price of import is abnormal and the import statics of this
item points to either misclassification of the import item or
it not the like article, went on to compute export price on
the basis of such admittedly misclassified unlike articles
and made the determination of dumping margin on the
basis of such erroneous export price.
Methodology for determination of likelihood of dumping and injury
1st Sunset review The likelihood of dumping and injury is required to be
Findings determined on the basis of the total exports from China to
various countries.
Present Sunset review No such examination
Findings
Submissions of the Despite the submission of information with respect to low
appellant priced exports of Chinese producers to other countries, the
Authority made no such Analysis. In paragraph 64(iv) of
the impugned Final Findings, the Authority has noted the
submission and evidences presented by the appellant that
more than 70% of the quantities exported from China to
other countries are at the price which would have a
positive injury margin and around 83% of the quantities
sold to other countries are at dumped prices. This proves
beyond an iota of doubt that there is every likelihood that
at these prices, if the excess capacity is diverted to India,
injury to Domestic Industry would be imminent.
Non-participation of Chinese Exporters
1st Sunset review All other interested parties who could have given valuable
Findings information to the Authority have preferred not to
cooperate with the Authority in the present investigations.
The Authority notes that the relevant information from the
interested parties is more important in sunset review
investigations where an assessment of likelihood is
required to be made.
Findings
Submissions of the Despite non-cooperation by Government of China and
appellant producers, exporters and importers, adverse inference has
been drawn against domestic industry for absence of
information.
Likely export price
1st Sunset review As regards the submission of SGPL that only the weighted
Findings average price to rest of the world should be taken into
consideration for the purpose of estimating the likely
export price to India, the Authority notes that even if
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
weighted average price of exports from China globally is

above normal value the same does not mean that
dumping from China is unlikely in the event of cessation of
Anti-Dumping duty, particularly in a situation where a
significant part of these exports are at dumped prices and
are likely to cause injury to the domestic industry. Thus,
any determination made on the basis of weighted average
price of exports could be highly misleading. The facts of
the present case in fact have established that even when
weighted average price of exports is above normal value, a
significant portion of these exports are at dumped and
injurious price. The Authority thus considers to take into
account the average export price of dumped and injurious
transactions from China to all countries (other than India).
Findings
Submissions of the Likely export price from China has not been computed in
appellant the impugned Final Findings despite information regarding
the same was submitted by the petitioner.
Likely export price in the absence of imports
1st Sunset review The Authority considers it appropriate to take into account
Findings the average export price of dumped and injuries
transactions from China to all countries (other than India)
based on the transaction-wise exports data submitted by
the domestic industry from HS International Inc
(impexp.com) - Sydney, Australia. The Authority has
adopted this method because in the absence of actual
exports to India, the Authority is determining the likely
export price at which subject goods if diverted to India are
likely to cause dumping and injury to the domestic
industry.
Findings
Submissions of the
Likely export price from China has not been computed in
appellant the impugned Final Findings though information regarding
the same was submitted by the petitioner. In fact export
price for 73 MT has been taken into account though it was
specifically recorded that the price of export was
abnormal. It was also recorded in paragraph 35 of
impugned Final Findings that the “importer statistics of
the this item points to either misclassification of the
import item or it not being the like article.”
Likely export price and dumping margin
1st Sunset review The likely ex-works export price of the exports from China
Findings PR is determined by the Authority by making appropriate
adjustments to the likely net export price on account of
inland freight and insurance, commission, port expenses,
bank charges and VAT adjustment. After making these
adjustments, the likely adjusted ex-factory export price
determined is as US$*** per MT. Likely Dumping Margin
during POI is.
US$ (per MT)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Normal Value ***

Net Export Price ***
Likely Dumping Margin ***
Likely Dumping Margin% ***
Likely Dumping 0-10 *** Margin% Range
Findings
Submissions Likely export price and likely dumping margin from of the
appellant China has not been computed in the impugned
Final Findings though information the regarding the same
was submitted by the petitioner.
Likelihood of dumping injury.
1st Sunset review For the purpose of determining likelihood of dumping and
Findings injury, the Authority has analyzed the transaction wise
export prices of Chinese producers to countries other than
India as submitted by the Domestic Industry from HS
International Inc (impexp.com) - Sydney, Australia. 76
Findings
Submissions of the Despite submission of information regarding Chinese
appellant prices to other countries, no such procedure has been
followed in impugned Final Findings
Surplus capacities in China
1st Sunset review From the data/information available with the Authority, it
Findings is noted that the total volume of exports from China PR to
other countries during the POI was 4,88,530 MT at an
average FOB price of Rs. 39,196 per MT out of which
1,13,641 MT (23%) was at dumped prices as well as at
prices which are lower than the non-injurious price of the
Domestic Industry. The demand of the subject goods in
India during the POI was 6,64,628 MT. This 23% of the
total exports from China which are at dumped as well as
injurious prices constitutes 17% of the total demand in
India. This 17% is substantial volume and assumes great
significance considering the fact that there is huge
capacity available in China; none of the major
producers/exporters from China as well as importers in
India have responded to the investigation and if the total
demand in India is seen, there is every likelihood that if
the anti-dumping duties are revoked, the percentage of
dumped as well as injurious exports to India are likely to
increase and take away major portion of the India
demand. Further, even if the export behaviour and
production capacity of the only responding interested
party SGPL is seen it is noted that as per the information
available with the Authority the known capacity of SGPL is
17,00,000 MT and the production during the POI is only
3,25,367 MT. This leaves surplus capacity of 13,74,633 MT
with SGPL alone which is almost double the demand in
India. This available surplus capacity can be utilised by
SGPL for likely exports to India at the minimum dumped
and injurious export price to the world so determined
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
above
(Emphasis Added)
Findings
Submissions of the The procedure and conclusions reached in the context of
appellant Surplus Capacity in earlier Final Findings are not followed
in impugned Final Findings. In fact a diagonally opposite
stance has been taken by the Designated Authority
despite similar information being on record.
Surplus capacities in China
1st Sunset review On the basis of the information made available by the
Findings Domestic Industry from the websites of some
producers/exporters as also other reliable websites of
some other producers/ex-porters, it is seen that the
Chinese producers/exporters have ample production
capacities with them. They are also exporting Ductile Iron
Pipes around the world. No other interested, party has
either controverted the information or provided any
counter-factual information. Moreover, it is noted, that the
interested parties have failed to give any additional factual
information which they wanted the Authority to consider
while determining the issue of excess capacities. Thus,
there is ample evidence to conclude that the Chinese
producers have substantial production capacities. These
capacities are in themselves more than the total
production capacity of the domestic industry. The
importance of such huge production capacities and exports
by the Chinese producers/exporters cannot, be ignored.
Present Sunset review In relation to the surplus capacity and the likelihood of its
Findings diversion to India in case of revocation of duties, it is
noted that mere existence of surplus capacity does not
establish the likelihood of diversion of surplus production
to India to prove the likelihood of imports, if Anti-Dumping
duties were to be revoked.
Submissions of the The procedure and conclusions reached in the context of
appellant Surplus Capacity in earner Final Findings are not followed
in impugned Final Findings. In fact a diagonally opposite
stance has been taken by the Designated Authority
despite exactly similar information being on record.
Likelihood of dumping and injury
1st Sunset review Considering the facts available on record with regard to
Findings the likely prices to India and the fact that there are huge
production capacities in China and that none of the major
producers/exporters from China as well as importers in
India have responded to the investigation the Authority
determines that if the existing duties are removed, there
is every likelihood of the subject goods coming to India at
dumped prices which are further likely to cause injury to
the domestic industry
Findings
Submissions of the Despite similar facts and circumstances, a contradictory
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
appellant approach taken by the Authority in the impugned Final

Findings.
Likely price undercutting and price underselling
1st Sunset review Having regard to the contentions raised, information
Findings provided and submissions made by the interested parties
and facts available before the Authority and on the basis of
above analysis including analysis of likelihood of
continuation of dumping and injury, the Authority
determines that:
i) The constructed Normal Value and the likely net export
price to India clearly indicate the likelihood of dumping
from China PR if the existing duties are allowed to be
revoked.
(ii) The likely export prices from China PR clearly indicate
the likelihood of injury to the Domestic Industry in the
form of price undercuttings shown below:
Likely Under Cutting During POI.
US$ (per MT)
NSR ****
Landed Value (Likely) ****
Likely Under Cutting Margin ****
Likely Under Cutting Margin% ****
Likely Under Cutting Margin% 5-15 range
(iii) The likely export prices from China also clearly
indicate the likelihood of injury to the Domestic Industry
in the form of price underselling as shown below.
US$ (per MT)
NSR ****
NIP ****
Landed Value (Likely) ****
Likely Under Selling **** Margin%
Likely Under Cutting 0-10 Margin% range
(iv) Further, by taking likely prices to India from the same
data, the injury margin is also positive.
(v) Based on the analysis of information on production
capacity of the subject goods of the Chinese
producers/exporters; non-cooperation of the major
Chinese producers/exporters in the investigation and the
price attractiveness of the domestic market in India, there
is every likelihood that if the duties are revoked, the
volume of dumped and injurious exports from China to
India is likely to increase and likely to cause injury to the
domestic industry.
Findings
Submissions of the Despite submission of information regarding likely price
appellant undercutting and likely price underselling, no such
procedure is followed in impugned Final Findings
12. It has been further pleaded by the appellant that there was no import of the
subject goods to India from China PR in the entire injury investigation period including
POI and post POI. In the absence of exports to India from any Chinese exporter,
except a minor quantity exported by M/s. SGPL from China, this can not be taken as
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
basis of calculation of export prices. Since there were no exports of the subject goods
namely, DI pipes to India from China PR for the entire injury investigation period
including the period of investigation, Designated Authority has not been able to
determine export price and dumping margin for POI and post POI. It has further been
stressed by the learned advocate that the Designated Authority grossly erred in
keeping the dumping margin confidential from the appellant. Thus, material
information was withheld from the appellant on the ground of confidentiality under
Rule 7 of Anti-Dumping Duty Rules in utter disregard to the principles of natural
justice and in violation of the principles set out by the Supreme Court in the Reliance
Industries. It has further been stressed that in the present investigations, none of the
producer/exporters from China PR, except M/s. SGPL, filed the questionnaire response
to the Designated Authority. It has been stated that M/s. SGPL is not a significant
exporter from China not only to India but to other countries also and they have also
not filed full response but only a partial response to the questionnaire supplied to
them. Since the participant party M/s. SGPL, was not a significant exporter of the
product under consideration, the information and data by it is of no relevance for the
dumping margin and material injury. The Designated Authority was required to
determine likelihood of the dumping and injury, considering the volume of exports
which were at the dumped price and volume of exports which were at injurious price
on the basis of exports made by Chinese exporters to other countries. In the present
circumstances. the likelihood of dumping and injury was required to be determined on
the basis of total exports from China to India and various other countries globally. It
has further been stressed that since SGPL was not a significant exporter, the price
data of SGPL cannot be considered as a representative export price for analysing the
likelihood of dumping and injury in the given circumstances.
13. The main contention of the learned advocate with regard to the likelihood of
dumping injury is that the submissions made by them have been completely
overlooked or not appropriately examined by the Designated Authority. The contention
is that the China PR is one of the major exporters of the subject product namely, DI
Pipes to various countries such as Sri. Lanka, Vietnam and Turkey and that these
countries have similar developments level and infrastructure requirements. The price
at which the goods were exported by manufacturers of China PR to these countries can
reasonably be considered for calculating the dumping margin and injury margin taking
into account all the export transaction from China to other countries for analysis of the
price attractiveness to Indian market. It has further been submitted that it was
established by the domestic industry by submitting documentary data to establish
that 70% of the quantity exported from China to other countries are at price which
would have positive injury margin and around 28% of the quantity sold to other
countries are at dumped price. The learned advocate emphasised that this very factor
goes beyond doubt that if Anti-Dumping Duty is not continued on imports from China
on DI pipes, there is every likelihood that Chinese manufacturer/exporters to India will
certainly again resort to dumping of product as they have been doing before levy of
Anti-Dumping Duty.
14. The learned advocate has taken us through the table which indicates the
margin of dumping and price underselling by the Chinese exporters in case of exports
made to Sri. Lanka, Vietnam and Turkey. The same is as follows:
“6. The Domestic Industry has carried out the Price underselling analysis on
the basis of the actual exports made by Chinese exporters to Turkey, Vietnam and
Sri. Lanka. The position emerges as follows:
Sri. Lanka Turkey Vietnam
Landed Value RS/MT 44520 40502 42451
NIP Rs/MT 56359 56359 56359
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price Rs/MT 11839 15857 13908

underselling
Price % 27% 39% 33%
underselling
Price Range 20-30 35-45 30-40
underselling
7. From the above, it is amply clear that the injury margin is likely to be positive
in no uncertain terms if the anti-dumping duties are not extended. The price
undercutting would also be positive. In such a scenario, withdrawal of anti-dumping
duties will certainly let the manufacturers and exporters of the subject goods from
China to freely dump the subject goods to the detriment of the Indian industry.
8. Likely Dumping Margin: The Domestic Industry has also estimated the likely
level of dumping based on the information available. The position emerges as
follows:
Net Export Rs/MT 32111 28761 30386
Price
Normal Value Rs/MT 48098 48098 48098
Dumping Rs/MT 15987 19337 17712
Margin
Dumping % 50% 67% 58%
Margin
It can be seen from a glance at the above mentioned tables that there are
incidence of high percentage of price under cutting and huge dumping margins in
the exports made by Chinese exporters to these countries.
15. The learned advocate has further vehemently mentioned that the appellant
submitted before the Designated Authority about existence of surplus production
capacities of the product in China PR for manufacture and export of the product under
consideration namely DI pipes. The fact of existence of huge surplus capacities was
proved by the appellant by submitting evidence before the Designated Authority. It
was contended that in case the Anti-Dumping Duty is not continued, there is every
likelihood that excess surplus capacities available with the China PR will be used for
export of product under consideration namely, the DI pipes at dumping price to India
as was being done before the Anti-Dumping Duty was first levied in 2007. The
argument of availability of huge surplus capacity was rejected by the Designated
Authority by only mentioning that the appellant has not proved “beyond doubt” that
surplus capacities are going to find their way for export to India. The contention of the
learned advocate is that this finding of the Designated Authority is contrary to the
basic meaning of “likelihood” as provided in the Act and Rules. It has further been
stressed that the slight improvement in the economic parameters of the domestic
industries was primarily on account of Anti-Dumping Duty being in place on the import
of DI pipes from China PR. It has vehemently been contended by the learned Advocate
that injury is going to be faced by the domestic industry in case the Anti-Dumping
Duty is removed. The little improvement in economic parameters which took place will
immediately disappear and the basic purpose of likelihood assessment will get
defeated if such an attitude is sustained and Anti-Dumping Duty levied on such
products is allowed to be removed.
16. It has further been submitted that after the disclosure statement was given by
the Designated Authority as per the provisions of Rule 16, the objections which were
raised by the appellant have been rejected in a perfunctory manner without giving any
thought to the same. The learned advocate has taken us through the details of excess
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
capacities available with Chinese exporters. The details are tabulated below:
Particulars
Chinese capacity (MT) 72,70,000
Capacity of Domestic Producers (MT) 22,35,000
Demand in India (MT) 15,76,776
Production of Domestic industry (MT) 17,24,624
Sales of Domestic industry (MT) 15,76,368
Chinese capacity as a % of capacity of 325%
domestic industry (%)
Chinese capacity as a % of demand in 461%
India (%)
Chinese capacity as a % of production of 422%
Chinese capacity as a % of sales of 461%
17. Thus, the Domestic Industry submitted that the capacities of the subject goods
in China was more than 3 times of the capacity of the Domestic Industry. Further,
Chinese capacity of the subject goods is 4.6 times and 4.2 times of the demand in
India and production of the Domestic Industry, respectively. It was also submitted
that, if such quantities are diverted to India, at the likely prices, injury to the
Domestic Industry is imminent.
Submissions on behalf of Designated Authority and the Revenue.
18. Learned Advocate for the Designated Authority Shri Ameet Singh made the
following submissions:
(i) Due consideration was given to the submissions made by the appellant while
examining the import price of the DI pipes from China PR to third countries.
(ii) During the POI, the import of the subject goods was a mere 73 MT. As per the
domestic industry itself, in the post-POI period, there was no “likelihood” of
importation of subject goods as no Chinese producer/exporter is understood to
have Chinese capacity as a % of sales of domestic industry (%) participated in
any contract for supply of the subject goods to India. Thus, there was no
question of increase of imports, let alone significant increase in imports from
China PR.
(iii) The Designated Authority noted that there is no question of imports causing
suppressing or depressing effect on domestic prices.
(iv) In relation to the surplus capacity and the likelihood of its diversion to India in
case of revocation of duties, the mere existence of surplus capacity does not
establish the likelihood of diversion of surplus production to India to prove the
likelihood of imports, if anti-dumping duties were to be revoked.
(v) The facts and circumstances of the second sunset review investigation when
compared to that of the previous sunset review investigation are not entirely
similar. There are key difference between the previous sunset review
investigation and the impugned sunset review investigation. They have been
elaborated as follows:
(a) Firstly, at the time of the previous sunset review investigation, anti-dumping
duties against the subject imports were in force for five years. At the time of
impugned sunset review investigation, anti-dumping duty was in force for
more than 10 years.
(b) Secondly, in the previous sunset review investigation, the economic
parameters of the domestic industry had not improved and were weak.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in the current sunset review investigation, the economic

performance of the domestic industry had improved.
(c) In the previous review, the domestic industry, was incurring losses, faced
declining cash profits, low return on investment and had high levels of
accumulated inventory. However, under the second sunset review there was
growing profitability and increasing return on investments.
(d) Thus, the appellant is not correct in asserting that the Designated Authority
came to different conclusions based on identical facts.
(e) Reliance has been placed on the decision in Kesoram Rayon v. Designated
Authority reported under [(2018) 359 ELT 475 (Del)].
Findings
19. We have carefully gone through the submissions made by the rival parties,
namely, the appellant-domestic industry, the Designated Authority and the Revenue
and have perused the records.
20. We are required to examine whether the Anti-Dumping Duty which was
imposed on the import of DI pipes from China PR needs continuation. The Designated
Authority has recommended that continuation of Anti-Dumping Duty on import of DI
pipes from the subject country namely, China PR is no longer required. We find that
Anti-Dumping Duty on the product under consideration namely, DI pipes has been
levied since 14 September, 2007 vide Customs Notification dated 14 September,
2007. The appellant is before us as the Anti-Dumping Duty has not been continued
after 9 October, 2018 on the expiry of the period mentioned in the Notification dated
10 October, 2013. We find it appropriate to mention that levy of Anti-Dumping Duty
on any goods is primarily to protect the domestic industry from unfair trade practices
adopted by the foreign exporters who resort to export of goods at highly reduced
prices with an intent to dump the goods in the domestic market so as to capture the
major share of domestic demand resulting in causing grave economic injury to the
domestic industry. The provisions of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as well as rules framed
thereunder are in consonance with the guidelines of World Trade Organisation. These
guidelines ensure that in case there is any attempt to dump goods, the domestic
industry is insulated from injury which may be caused by unscrupulous exporters.
However, action can be taken within the guidelines of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
and the 1995 Rules.
21. As mentioned above, the present proceedings are for a second sunset review for
levy of Anti-Dumping Duty which was imposed on the subject goods namely, the DI
pipes at the behest of the appellant domestic industry in 2007 and continued in 2013.
To analyse the issue at hand, it will be appropriate to have a glance of the necessary
legal provisions concerning sunset review of Anti-Dumping Duty under the Customs
Tariff Act, 1975 and Rules framed thereunder.
22. Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is as follows:
“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 of 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.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. Rule 23 of Rules, 1995 is as follows:

“(1) Any anti-dumping duty imposed under the provision of Section 9A of the Act,
shall remain in force, so long as and to the extent necessary, to counteract
dumping, which is causing injury.
(1A) The designated authority shall review the need for the continued imposition of
any anti-dumping duty, where warranted, on its own initiative or upon request
by any interested party who submits positive information substantiating the
need for such review, and a reasonable period of time has elapsed since the 26
AD A. No. 50430/2019 imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty and upon
such review, the designated authority shall recommend to the Central
Government for its withdrawal, where it comes to a conclusion that the injury to
the domestic industry is not likely to continue or recur, if the said anti-dumping
duty is removed or varied and is therefore no longer warranted.
(1B) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) or (1A), any definitive Anti
-Dumping duty levied under the Act, shall be effective for a period not exceeding
five years from the date of its imposition, unless the designated authority comes
to a conclusion, on a review initiated before that period on its own initiative or
upon a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of the domestic industry
within a reasonable period of time prior to the expiry of that period, that the
expiry of the said Anti-Dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry.
(2) Any review initiated under sub-rule (1) shall be concluded within a period not
exceeding twelve months from the date of initiation of such review.
(3) The provisions of rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 shall be
mutatis mutandis applicable in the case of review.”
24. Annexure (II) to the Rules is as follows:
“(i) ……………………………….
(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 prices as referred to in sub-rule
(2) to rule 18 the designated authority shall consider whether there has been a
significant price under cutting by the dumped imports as compared with the
price of like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise
to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increase which
otherwise would have occurred, to a significant degree.
…………………………………………
(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 shall consider, inter alia, such factors as:
(a) A significant rate of increase of dumped imports into India indicating
the likelihood of substantially increased importation;
(b) Sufficient freely disposable, or an imminent, substantial increase in,
capacity of the exporter indicating the likelihood of substantially
increased dumped exports to Indian markets;
(c) Whether imports are entering at prices that will have a significant
depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices, and would likely
increase demand for further imports; and
(d) Inventories of the article being investigated.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. It had been established by the Designated Authority that there was dumping
by the exporter which had resulted in injury to the domestic industry in the past and,
therefore, they initiated detailed investigation and concluded in the year 2007 vide
their Final Findings notified vide Notification dated 23 August, 2007 that there was
dumping of subject goods namely, DI pipes from China PR, and accordingly, Anti-
Dumping Duty on the subject goods imported from China PR was imposed by the
notification in September, 2007. It is also a matter of record that the Designated
Authority considered it necessary to continue with the Anti-Dumping Duty in the first
sunset review which took place in September, 2013 and accordingly the levy of Anti-
Dumping Duty on subject goods was continued. From a perusal of the above
mentioned legal provisions, it is apparent that in case of sunset review, the authority
has to only see whether the cessation of Anti-Dumping Duty on the subject goods
would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic
industry.
26. In this connection, it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the
Supreme Court in Kumoh Petolchemicals Company Ltd. v. Union of India reported in
[(2017) 351 ELT 65 (SC)], wherein it was held as under:
“9. It is not in dispute that in terms of Section 9A(5) of the Act, anti-dumping
duty is effective for a period not exceeding five years from the date of its
imposition. The Government is empowered to revoke the duty imposed even
before the expiry of five years. In any case, such a duty admittedly ceases to be
operative after five years from the date of imposition. At the same time, the
Central Government is empowered to initiate review, called ‘sunset review’, and
to investigate and decide as to whether it is necessary to continue the levy of
anti-dumping duty. As in the case of original Notification imposing such a duty,
the Central Government is to satisfy itself that if the period of anti-dumping duty
is not extended, it is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and
injury to the domestic industry. The nature of exercise to be undertaken by the
Central Government in a ‘sunset review’ is somewhat different from the initial
exercise to determine whether anti-dumping duty is to be levied at all or not.
When it comes to review, the focus would be on the issue as to whether
withdrawal of anti-dumping duty would lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping as well as injury to the domestic industry. The nature and scope of this
exercise is lucidly explained by this Court in Reliance Industries v. Designated
Authorities, (2006) 10 SCC 368 : (2006) 202 ELT 23 (S.C.) in the following
manner:—
“38. We are of the opinion that the nature of the proceedings before the
DESIGNATED AUTHORITY are quasi-judicial, and it is well settled that a quasi-
judicial decision, or even an administrative decision which has civil
consequences, must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice,
and hence reasons have to be disclosed by the Authority in that decision vide
S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, [(1990) 4 SCC 594 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 669 :
1991 SCC (L&S) 242 : (1991) 16 ATC 445].
39. We do not agree with the Tribunal that the notification of the Central
Government under Section 9A is a legislative act. In our opinion, it is clearly
quasi-judicial. The proceedings before the Designated Authority are to
determine the lis between the domestic industry on the one hand and the
importer of foreign goods from the foreign supplier on the other. The
determination of the recommendation of the Designated Authority and the
government notification on its basis is subject to an appeal before CESTAT.
This also makes it clear that the proceedings before the Designated Authority
are quasi-judicial.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(emphasis supplied)
27. The above view was also taken by the Tribunal in Thai Acrylic Fibre Ltd. v.
Designated Authority reported in [(2010) 253 ELT 564 (Tri-Del)]. The relevant extract
is reproduced herein below:
“13. Unlike original investigations, sunset reviews are prospective in nature,
as they focus on the likelihood of the continuation or recurrence of dumping and
injury, in case antidumping duties are removed. With 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
nonexistent or minimal. The exporters under investigation may also sell at a non-
dumped price during this period knowing fully well that a sunset review would be
in progress. Hence, the criteria under Section 9A(1) that the anti-dumping duty
should not exceed the dumping margin would have no practical application for
continuance of the duty under Section 9A(5). There is also no such warrant in
law under the said Section 9A(5) to do so.”
28. It is clear from the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court and the
provisions of the Act and the Rules that the objective and purpose of sunset review is
to examine whether on removal of Anti-Dumping Duty, the incidence of recurrence of
the dumping and injury to the domestic industry is likely to take place again or not. It
is relevant to mention here that in the likelihood analysis, the degree and extent of
dumping and consequent injury to the domestic industry during the period of
investigation is not much relevant or important.
29. Before proceeding further it is appropriate to have a glance of the findings
which have been given by the Designated Authority for non-continuation of Anti-
Dumping Duty on the subject DI Pipes.
“67. The examination of post-disclosure comments is as under:
i. As regards the submission that the Authority has not carried out sufficient
analysis on likelihood or recurrence of dumping and injury, it is noted that the
Authority has carried out detailed analysis in this regard at appropriate places
of the present findings.
ii. The Authority notes that there have been negligible imports of the Product
under Consideration during the period of investigation and therefore the price
attractiveness analysis for the Indian market based on such miniscule import
would be inappropriate.
iii. The domestic industry has itself submitted that even in post-POI period there
is no likelihood of any import of subject goods having taken place on account
of (a) anti-dumping duty being in force and (b) the nature of the product, as
no Chinese producer/exporter is understood to have participated in any
contract for supply of ductile iron pie in India. Since the import of PUC has
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
almost stopped during the injury period, the requirement of significant rate of
increase of dumped imports into India in terms of Annexure II (vii)(a) of the
AD Rule for analysis of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury is not
met.
iv. The authority further notes that the very fact that the imports of PUC declined
sharply during injury period establishes the fact that the anti-dumping
measure applied since 23rd August, 2007 has already served its intended
purpose and that there is no need for its further continuation.
v. The Authority further takes note of the fact that there are surplus capacities
with the Chinese exporters. However, the Authority reiterates that mere
creation of additional capacities cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence
of likelihood of dumping or injury. The Domestic Industry has failed to provide
any evidence to prove that the additional capacities in China would be
diverted to India in case of revocation of anti-dumping duty.
I. Conclusion and Recommendations
68. Having examined the contentions of the domestic industry and on the
basis of the above analysis, the Authority concludes that continuation of anti-
dumping duty is not warranted and accordingly recommends no further
extension of anti-dumping duty on the subject goods from the subject
countries.”
30. We have examined the Final findings in detail and find that the important facts
which have been mentioned by the Appellant domestic industry have not been
properly considered by the Designated Authority. We take note of the fact that
imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on the subject DI pipes imported from China PR
have made a definite impact on the health of the domestic industry. A perusal of
various key economic parameters indicate that the health of domestic DI pipe
manufacturing industry has been showing improvement only after imposition of Anti-
Dumping Duty on the subject goods.
31. We also find that after imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty, the imports from
China PR of the DI pipes became almost negligible as only a small quantity of 73 MT
was reported to have been imported during the period of investigation i.e. 2017-2018.
The purpose of importing such a small quantity at a high price may have been to
distort price undercutting. However, the fact remains that after imposition of Anti-
Dumping Duty on the DI pipes imported from China PR, the imports from the subject
country were reduced drastically and this provided a protective shield to the domestic
industry.
32. For the purpose of analysing whether there is any likelihood of continuation of
Anti-Dumping Duty, in case the Anti-Dumping Duty is removed from the import of DI
pipes from China PR, it has to be noted that China is not only an exporter to India but
it has also been exporting the subject goods to various other countries, such as
Turkey, Vietnam and Sri. Lanka. The appellant domestic industry had provided
detailed data of price underselling, dumping margin etc. with regard to imports by
China to these countries. It is relevant to examine the analysis carried and provided by
the Domestic Industry with regard to price undercutting and dumping margin of
exports of DI pipes by China PR to countries namely, Sri. Lanka, Turkey and Vietnam.
33. The Domestic Industry has carried out the Price underselling analysis on the
basis of the actual exports made by Chinese exporters to Turkey, Vietnam and Sri.
Lanka. The position which emerges is as follows:
Landed Value RS/MT 44520 40502 42451
NIP Rs/MT 56359 56359 56359
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Price Rs/MT 11839 15857 13908

underselling
Price % 27% 39% 33%
underselling
Price Range 20-30 35-45 30-40
underselling
34. From the above, it is obvious that the injury margin is likely to be positive in no
uncertain terms if the Anti-Dumping Duty is not extended. The price undercutting
would also be positive. In such a situation, withdrawal of Anti-Dumping Duty will
certainly enable the manufacturers and exporters of the subject goods from China to
freely dump the subject goods to the detriment of the Domestic Industry.
35. Similarly, with regard to dumping margin the following position was submitted
before the Designated Authority by the Domestic Industry.
Net Export Rs/MT 32111 28761 30386
Price
Normal Value Rs/MT 48098 48098 48098
Dumping Rs/MT 15987 19337 17712
Margin
Dumping % 50% 67% 58%
Margin
36. The above mentioned Tables also reveal that China exporters have been
indulging in huge dumping of the subject goods in countries such as Sri. Lanka,
Turkey and Vietnam. The margin of dumping has been varying from 50% to 67%,
which is very high and it will be very difficult for any industry to compete with such a
dumped price. The Designated Authority in the Final findings has not made any
analysis and drawn any conclusion on these submissions.
37. The appellant Domestic industry had also provided concrete evidence of excess
capacities available in China for manufacture of subject goods namely DI pipes. The
Table below basically makes it very clear that China exporters have a huge capacity to
manufacture and export the goods to India. The Domestic Industry has compared the
domestic capacities in China with capacities, production, sales and demand in India to
provide an insight into the potential danger and the imminent likelihood of dumped
imports into the country in large volumes, as shown below:
Particulars
Chinese capacity (MT) 7520000
Capacity of Domestic Producers (MT) 2235000
Demand in India (MT) 1576776
Production of Domestic industry (MT) 1724624
Sales of Domestic industry (MT) 1576368
Chinese capacity as a % of capacity of 336%
Chinese capacity as a % of demand in 477%
India (%)
Chinese capacity as a % of production of 436%
Chinese capacity as a % of sales of 477%
38. From the above Table it is amply clear that the capacity of the subject goods in
China is 3.36 times of the capacity of the Domestic Industry. Further, Chinese capacity
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of the subject goods is 5.1 times and 4.36 times of the demand in India and
production of the Domestic Industry respectively.
39. Now referring to the provisions of Appendix II, which provides guidelines for
making a determination with regard to the likely existence of dumping and material
injury threat in likelihood analysis, the Designated Authority was required to consider
the following factors:
(A) a significant rate of increase of the dumped imports into India indicating the
likelihood of substantially increased importation;
(B) sufficient free disposable, or an imminent substantial increase in capacity of the
exporter indicating the likelihood of substantial increased dumped exports to
Indian markets, taking into account the availability of other export markets to
absorb any additional exports;
(C) Whether the imports were entering at prices that would have a significant
depressing or suppressing effect on the domestic prices and would likely increase
the demand for further imports and
(D) inventory of article being investigated.
40. We undertake to analyse the facts given in the preceding paragraphs. It is a
matter of record that after imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty in 2007, the imports from
China PR has been minimum. This establishes beyond doubt, that the imposition of
Anti-Dumping Duty was effective. We also find that key economic factors such as
profits, returns on investment and capacity utilisation have all shown appreciable
improvement. The factors A and C of Appendix-II need to be taken together for
arriving at any conclusion. The incidence of dumped imports was minimum during the
period of investigation because of imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty as the Domestic
Industry could provide effective price competition to the dumped imports. As a result,
the import of dumped import of subject goods namely, the DI pipes became minimum
and Domestic Industry could effectively meet the demand of subject goods in the
domestic market. It has also to be seen whether the exporting country namely China
PR resorted to dumping of their product in other countries as during the POI and post
POI there are no exports to India from China PR. This fact is of great relevance in
analysing the ‘likelihood’ situation, if Anti-Dumping duty ceases to be levied, as there
are no dumped imports after imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty.
41. We take note of two important facts here, firstly that the Domestic Industry has
substantial demand of the subject product, and that the exporters from China PR have
been exporting their product i.e. D.I. pipe to other countries such as Sri. Lanka, Turkey
and Vietnam at substantial price underselling varying between 27% to 39%. As
indicated in the above Tables there has been huge dumping margins varying from
50% to 67%. These two factors obviously indicate that if the Anti-Dumping Duty is not
imposed on the imports of DI pipes from China PR, the Chinese exporters would
certainly dump their product to capture the demand of Indian domestic markets of DI
pipes by reducing the price competitiveness of goods manufactured in India.
42. As mentioned earlier, the Chinese producers/exporters have huge excess
production capacities with them. The production capacities of Chinese producers are
much above their local demand and it is as high as four times of the Indian capacities
as can be seen from the Table in paragraph 37. These excess production capacities in
excess of the Chinese demand are certainly not for decorative purpose but for export
to other countries. Thus, this very fact satisfies criterion B of the Appendix II and
establishes that as soon as the protective guard of Anti-Dumping Duty is removed,
there would be a likelihood of dumping of these goods, i.e. DI pipes into the Domestic
Indian market.
43. However, the Designated Authority in the Final findings has not considered all
facts in a scientific and analytic manner. The finding of the Designated Authority that
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the cessation of Anti-Dumping Duty is not likely to lead further dumping of the subject
product into domestic industry is contrary to the record and cannot be sustained.
44. We also take note that the dumping margin worked out by the Designated
Authority has not been disclosed to the appellant Domestic industry by taking shelter
of Rule 7 of Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995.
45. It is apparent from a bare reading of Rule 7 that a claim of confidentiality can
only be made by the participating companies/persons. It is not for Designated
Authority to claim confidentiality under Rule 7. This position has been clarified by the
Supreme Court in Reliance Industries. The relevant extract is reproduced below:
“41. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on Rule 7 of the Customs
Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on
Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, which states as
under:
“7. Confidential informations.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of Rule 6, sub-rule (2) of Rule 12, sub-rule (4) of Rule
15 and sub-rule (4) of Rule 17, the copies of applications received under sub-
rule (1) of Rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority
on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the
designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such
by it and no such information shall be disclosed to any other party without
specific authorization of the party providing such information.
(2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on
confidential basis to furnish non-confidential summary thereof and if, in the
opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible
of summary, such party may, submit to the designated authority a statement of
reasons why summarization is not possible.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated
authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the
supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or
to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard
such information”.
42. In our opinion, Rule 7 does not contemplate any right in the Designated
Authority to claim confidentiality. Rule 7 specifically provides that the right of
confidentiality is restricted to the party who has supplied the information, and
that party has also to satisfy the Designated Authority that the matter is really
confidential. Nowhere in the rule has it been provided that the Designated
Authority has the right to claim confidentiality, particularly regarding information
which pertains to the party which has supplied the same. In the present case,
the Designated Authority failed to provide the detailed costing information to the
appellant on the basis of which it computed the NIP, even though the appellant
was the sole producer of the product under consideration, in the country. In our
opinion this was clearly illegal, and not contemplated by Rule 7.”
46. Thus, non-disclosure of dumping margin to the appellant by claiming shelter of
Rule 7 is not justified and violates the principles of natural justice.
47. In view of above discussion, we are convinced that if Anti-Dumping Duty on the
import of DI pipes from China PR is not continued, it may result in likelihood of
dumping of subject goods i.e. DI pipes in the Domestic market.
48. In view of above, we hold that the Anti-Dumping Duty on the subject goods
namely, D.I. pipes needs to continue after the expiry of the period covered by the first
sunset review. We however, remand the matter to the Designated Authority for a
limited purpose for re-determining the quantum of Anti-Dumping Duty, if so
considered necessary, for the remaining period of five years. This exercise shall be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.
However, in case the duty is being redetermined, then till the quantum of Anti-
dumping Duty is redetermined, the present rate of Anti-dumping Duty shall continue
on the subject DI pipes imported from China PR.
49. In view of the above, we set aside the Final Findings of the Designated
Authority with the above directions. The appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated
above.
———
† Principal Bench at New Delhi
‡
[Arising out of Final Findings No. 7/18/2018-DGAD dated 01.04.2019 passed by the Designated Authority,
DGAD, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi)
1
Designated Authority
2
Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995
3 DI Pipes
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

J 2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 132 4174stkabirnavr Gmailcom 20230116 160514 1 20

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

J 2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 132 4174stkabirnavr Gmailcom 20230116 160514 1 20

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J 2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 132 4174stkabirnavr Gmailcom 20230116 160514 1 20

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2023 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Monday, January 16, 2023

2020 SCC OnLine CESTAT 132

In the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal†

Jindal Saw Ltd. … Appellant;

with a duly substantiated application for initiation of a second sunset review

export price based on the available import data. Export

weighted average price of exports from China globally is

Normal Value ***

appellant approach taken by the Authority in the impugned Final

Price Rs/MT 11839 15857 13908

However, in the current sunset review investigation, the economic

23. Rule 23 of Rules, 1995 is as follows:

Price Rs/MT 11839 15857 13908

You might also like