M/s The Dyestuffs Manufacturers' Association of India vs Union of India/DA

The appellant is an association of dyestuffs Units in India (DMAI). The appeal is against imposition of anti-dumping duty (AD duty) on 'aniline'

originating in or exported from European Union. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers Co. Ltd. (GNVF) filed an

application before Designated Authority (DA) in accordance with Customs Tariff Act, 1975 readwith Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and

Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, alleging dumping of aniline (subject goods)

originating in or exported from European Union. The application was supported by M/s Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (HOCL). The DA

initiated investigation by issuing public notice dated 20/12/2010. After following the procedure as prescribed in the AD Rules, the DA concluded that

the subject goods are exported to India below its associated normal value, thus resulting in dumping of the product. The DA also concluded that the

domestic industry has suffered material injury in respect of the subject goods. The material injury has been caused by the dumped imports from the

European Union.

Based on the recommendations of the DA in Final Findings dated 13/4/2012, Notification No. 30/2012 - CUS (AD) dated 29/5/2012 was issued

imposing AD Duty on the subject goods. The present appeal is directed against this Final Finding and notification.

The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly submitted on the following lines:

(a) Initiation of investigation is bad in law as certain essential pre-initiation examination was not carried out by the DA. HOCL supporting the initial

application by GNVF is not evidenced by record. Considered alone the data for GNVF will show no injury.

(b) HOCL data should not have been considered for injury analysis. The data was submitted very belatedly. There are other factors which affected

the performance of HOCL. There is no causal link between dumping of subject goods and performance of domestic industry, especially of HOCL.

(c) conclusion on injury was not based on adequate data. Post POI data was not examined in correct perspective. Temporary and very short lived

adverse situation due to reasons other than dumping should not lead imposition of AD Duty.

The learned Counsel for domestic industry and learned AR for Revenue supported the Final Findings of the DA. Learned Counsel for DA

submitted that all the material details were disclosed to all interested parties. Hence .there is no violation of any procedural requirements. HOCL did

furnish the required data. The data of both the domestic units have been examined as per norms. For HOCL other factors impacting performance

have been duly factored in the analysis by the DA. The anti-dumping duty has been imposed after strictly following the established procedure as per

AD Rules.

We have heard the Counsels for various parties and examined appeal records. The legality and correctness of findings of DA and notification

imposing AD Duty is under challenge. We note that the appellants main thrust is that there is no injury caused to domestic industry due to import of

subject goods from EU. The first objection was regarding the performance of HOCL and inclusion of such data in injury analysis. It is the case of

appellant that HOCL did not submit adequate data in time and hence the initiation of investigation by DA itself is flawed. We find that this issue has

been examined in para 9 to 13 of the Final Findings. The DA has categorically recorded the factual details and we find no reason to find any infirmity

in his findings. The requirement in terms of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules for ""domestic industry"" has been fulfilled in this case. Regarding belated

submission of information by HOCL, we agree with the examination by the DA (para 17 of the Finding) that the DA is required to include all such

information for purpose of investigations.

The other major protest by the appellant is that the performance and profitability of HOCL suffered due to various other factors and there is no

causal link to the import of subject goods to such adverse situation. We note that for a fair assessment of domestic industry a holistic analysis of all

available data of the producers has to be made. It is the case of appellant that HOCL suffered due to various other factors. The appellant relied on

certain remarks in the annual reports of HOCL to state the general economic slow down and other issues contributed to adverse results for HOCL. It

was emphasized that GNVF has been performing with full capacity and the sales of subject goods has increased. HOCL had low capacity utilization,

attributable to other factors and hence there is no injury to domestic industry. We are in agreement with the assessment by the DA regarding injury

and causal link. The following points are relevant :-

(a) there is no legal basis to restrict investigation to only one domestic producer. Even if the investigation starts with partial information, further data

can be supplemented during the course of investigation. The requirement that all such data should be disclosed to all interested parties has been

fulfilled. There is no grievance on this account.

(b) the price undercutting is relevant only for the period of investigation. It has been recorded by DA that landed price of subject goods is forcing the

domestic industry to reduce its prices.

(c) the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry should be viewed with all relevant economic factors having bearing on the state of the

industry as specified in Annexure II of AD Rules.

(d) the volume effect of dumped imports, price effects of subject goods, price undercutting and underselling have been examined and analyzed by the

DA with the help of relevant data.

(e) there is no capacity expansion by domestic industry in spite of sufficient demand due to availability of dumped import goods from EU. The sales of

domestic goods declined over the injury period. There is negative growth of domestic industry in most of the parameters - production, sales, inventory,

market share, profit etc.

(f) the other factors affecting HOCL have been considered by the DA and adjustments have been made in calculations (para 87 of finding). The

contest on this ground by the appellant has been vague with main thrust on low capacity utilization, plant shut down and general economic slow down.

No empherical data to support allegation of unfair analysis of impact on HOCL has been furnished. Whereas, the DA has noted that HOCL have

provided complete costing and injury information.

Having considered all the relevant facts and on careful perusal of the Final Finding of the DA we find no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly

the same is dismissed. The miscellaneous application and stay application also stands disposed.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 24.08/2016.)