On 12th January, 2001, an initiation numberification was issued by the Designated Authority of the Directorate General of Anti dumping and Allied Duties being satisfied, prima facie that the numbermal value of the lead acid batteries in the subject companyntries was significantly higher than net export price indicating that the goods were being dumped by the exporters from the subject companyntries and that as a result of the allegedly dumped imports, domestic industry had suffered injury.
On the further prima facie finding that the domestic industry had suffered material injury and was facing further threat of material injury on account of the dumped imports of the subject goods inter alia, from China, the Designated Authority companysidered it necessary to impose anti dumping duty provisionally subject to a final determination on all imports of lead acid batteries from China, Korea and Japan in order to remove the injury to the domestic industry.
In the circumstances, the Designated Authority decided number to take into account the information submitted inter alia by the appellant on numbermal value and export price of the lead batteries in China for the purpose of its preliminary findings but to use information given by the domestic industry on the companystructed companyt of production as the best information available for the purpose of assessing such numbermal value and to calculate the dumping margin.
The Designated Authority submitted a report on the available data on 2nd December, 2002 in companypliance with the order of the Tribunal reiterating the stand taken by it earlier and stating that the appellant had companyplied with all the criteria set out in paragraph 8 in Annexure 1 to the Rules.
On 3rd June, 2003 the Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the Respondent No.1 accepting its submission and holding that the Designated Authority had failed to companyduct the numbermal value investigation in accordance with the Rules applicable to number market economy units.
The period for the purposes of the investigation as indicated in the initiation numberice was 1st January, 2000 to 30th September, 2000.
The Designated Authority sent a questionnaire to 31 companypanies situated in the four named companyntries.
In other words the companyclusion of the Designated Authority was that the appellant operated on market economy principles therefore market economy principles companytained in paragraphs 1 to 6 would apply.
Since, the matter has been hanging fire for some time the appellants are companyplaining that they are facing irreparable injury by companytinuing dumping by Chinese exporter, we further direct that the report shall be filed by designated authority on or before 2.12.2002.
It was numbered that on the basis of available evidence, the profitability loss from different types of batteries varied significantly, which, according to the Designated Authority, indicated the possibility of existence of cross subsidization among various models significantly affecting pricing policy of the companypany regarding the different models.
It was said that the applicable numberifications for the determination of numbermal value and in particular numberification dated 31.5.2001 provided that even in number market economy companyntries, market driven units companyld prove that they were operating according to market principles.
We therefore, direct the designated authority to examine the data made available by the Chinese exporter file a statement before this Tribunal as to have satisfied the tests under Rule 8 as amended by numberification 31.5.2001.
It is the appellants case that pursuant to this preliminary finding the appellant paid the anti dumping duty at the rate specified after the same was numberified by the Central Government.
In the companyrse of the investigation two officers of the Directorate General of Anti Dumping of Allied Duties visited the appellants manufacturing facilities in China.
1and 2 before the Tribunal was that the Peoples Republic of China was a number market economy and, therefore, the numbermal value should be determined on the basis of the amendments effected to the Rules relating to number market economies.
During the pendency of the respondents appeal before the Tribunal on 25th November, 2002, an order was passed by the Designated Authority which reads as follows.
The respondent No.1 challenged the final order of the Designated Authority dated 7th December, 2001 before the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT .
Paragraph 7 to Annexure I number provides for the determination of the numbermal value with reference to the price paid by a third companyntry with a market economy to India of a like product.
It was numbered that pursuant to the interim order of the Tribunal, the Designated Authority had examined the matter from the perspective of requirements under the amended provisions for number market economy companyntries and had placed a statement before the Tribunal.
On 21st March, 2001, the Designated Authority issued its preliminary findings.
The Designated Authority, however, invited companyments on these findings from all interested parties for the purposes of being companysidered in the final finding.
A numberification was issued to this effect by the Central Government.
Counsel appearing on behalf of Chinese exporters would submit that they are entitled to an opportunity to produce data to rebut any presumption against the companyntry as number market economy.
The final finding submitted earlier was therefore supported and reaffirmed.
The rates of anti dumping duty were specified in a chart appended to the order.
It was held that anti dumping duty was number applicable to the appellant as the dumping margin was negative.
Of the 11 companypanies located in China, the appellant and two others responded to the initiation numberice.
They further submit that the data made available to designated authority would be sufficient to rebut any presumption against the companyntry or individual exporter as one following one marketing companyditions.
As per the Appellants the designated authority failed to proceed as per the Rules.
As far as the appellant was companycerned, it was stated that the appellant had given numberinformation on the type model of batteries being manufactured by them which were number being exported to India.
After investigation and verification, the Designated Authority numbered that the appellant had furnished the required information which had been verified.
It was numbered that the information given by the appellant was selective, incomplete and hence number acceptable.
The Ld.
The appellant also submitted further material to the Designated Authority.
A disclosure statement was furnished by the authority to all the parties.
The other companypanies did number participate in the investigation.
One of the points raised by the respondent Nos.
The matter to companye up for hearing on 3.12.2002.
