Cus - ADD on new/unused pneumatic radial tyres - Categorical conclusion that dumped imports had caused material injury to Domestic Industry cannot be contested either in law or on fact : CESTAT
By TIOL News Service
NEW DELHI, MAY 16, 2018: APPEALS have been filed against the final findings dated 01/08/2017 of the Designated Authority (DA)and Notification No. 45/2017-CUS (ADD) dated 18/09/2017 imposing definitive Anti Dumping Duty on "new/unused pneumatic radial tyres with or without tubes and/or flap of rubber (including tubeless tyres) having normal rim dia code above 16", used in buses and lorries/trucks", originating in or exported from China PR.
The first appellant is a producer and exporter of subject goods in China and is aggrieved by the imposition of AD duty.
The second appellant is a representative body of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association [ATMA] (Domestic Industry -DI). The appeal by them is against imposition of lesser anti-dumping duty on the subject goods.
The first appellant submitted that the DA failed in proper analysis of relevant economic factors before deciding the existence of dumping and injury due to such dumping for the Domestic Industry. It is further submitted that out of 15 parameters examined by the DA, only 4 parameters indicated the possibility of injury and remaining 11 parameters were all significantly positive with no scope for injury. On a previous occasion also [ Bridge Stone Tyre Manufacturing (Thailand) = 2011-TIOL-1141-CESTAT-DEL-LB the subject goods were examined for anti dumping duty and the Tribunal held that there is no material injury to the DI.
The Counsel for the DI opposed the appeal by the Chinese producer/exporter and inter alia submitted that the imported radial tyres are cheaper than the bias-ply tyres sold by DI; that it is a known fact that various countries including advanced countries proceeded against Chinese tyre imports and imposed anti dumping duties which are in many cases much higher than what is notified for Indian imports. The Tribunal decision cited (supra) was distinguished as having been dealt with various factual errors in the finding recorded by the DA but which is not the case here.
The Bench inter alia observed -
++ The imports from subject country increased by 12 times between 2012-2013 and POI. The market share of DI had in fact declined during the material period. The DA has clearly recorded that there is a significant price gap between domestic and imported product which led to the consumers increasingly switching over to imported Chinese products.
++ It is clear that the dumped imports resulted in sale of imported goods below the cost of sale of DI. The conclusion of the DA regarding causal link between dumped imports and the injury to the DI in para 104 of the findings are categorical. The imports of subject goods have increased in absolute terms over the entire period of investigation. These imports were under-cutting the prices of DI. The price undercutting caused by the dumped imports resulted in increase in market share of imports and decline in market share of DI.
++ For the injury analysis, the DA had examined all the mandatory parameters prescribed under the law. There is no need for segment wise analysis for OEM and replacement market. The categorical conclusion that dumped imports had caused material injury to the DI cannot be contested either in law or on fact.
++ It is not out of place to record here that China has over capacity in the manufacture of tyres and the industry in that country is export oriented and aided by policy of the Government of China. Admittedly, a number of countries such as Brazil, Turkey, Colombia, Egypt and U.S. have either imposed AD duty against import of subject goods from China or in the process of investigating cases of dumping. The Chinese companies had significant investment in rubber plantations in various parts of the world providing distinct price advantage in procuring natural rubber which is a main raw material in the manufacture of subject goods.
Concluding that the final findings and the customs notification on the imposition of Anti-Dumping duty on the subject goods are to be sustained, the appeal by the first appellant challenging the imposition of such duty was held to be without merit and dismissed.
Regarding appeal by ATMA, the Bench noted that their grievance that threat of injury has not been examined by the DA had no force. Accordingly, the appeal filed by ATMA was also dismissed.