KOREA KUMHO PETROCHEMICAL CO. Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN March, 1996 Designated Authority (D.A.) in the Ministry of Commerce, initiated an investigation into complaint by the domestic industry that Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber ('NBR') was being dumped into India. Upon conclusion of the investigations, DA issued its final finding dated 17th July, 1997 confirming the allegation and recommending imposition of anti -dumping duty on exports of NBR from South Korea and Germany. Pursuant to this final findings, antidumping duty was imposed under Notification 62/97 -Cus., dated 30th July, 1997 at rates recommended by the DA. M/s. Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (M/s. Kumho) was one of the exporters subjected to the investigation and duty had been imposed on its exports into India also. M/s. Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. the Indian Indenting Agent of M/s. Kumho filed an appeal against the imposition of duty before this Tribunal and that appeal was rejected by this Tribunal under its Order No. 22/2000 -AD, dated 2 -2 -2000 [2000 (119) E.L.T. 157 (Tribunal)]. Appeal against this order of the Tribunal is pending in the Supreme Court. 1.1 Two years later in 1999, DA initiated a mid -term review of the duty imposed in 1997. Again, based on a petition by the Domestic Industry. However, this investigation was not completed. It was terminated at the request of domestic industry. Subsequently, in May 2000, the DA initiated a suo motu review proceeding. This proceeding led to the issue of final findings dated 20, July, 2000. This finding also confirmed the earlier finding of 1997 that there was dumping, inter alia, by Kumho and recommended continuation of anti -dumping duty. However, the amount of anti -dumping duty was reduced from US 264 PMT to US 248.35 PMT. The Ministry of Finance accepted the review findings and issued Notification No. 91/2001, dated 7 -9 -2001 imposing duty at the revised reduced rate recommended by the DA.

(2.) THE present appeals have been filed against the Customs Notification and the review findings. The first appellant is the Korean exporter M/s. Kumho and the second appellant is the Indenting Agent of the 1st appellant and an Indian Importer of NBR.

(3.) THE appellants have contended that the recommendation for continuation of anti -dumping duty against their exports has been reached on an erroneous finding that there was dumping of NBR by them, and that, imports from them was the cause of injury to domestic industry. It is their submission that they had filed questionnaire response containing relevant information and data and a correct evaluation of the data relating to sale prices in Korea as well as their cost of production would have convinced the Designated Authority that there was no dumping of NBR by them. It has also been contended that the Domestic Industry's complaint about injury is baseless and that the Domestic Industry's production and price realization had gone up after the first investigation and imposition of duty.