KAJARIA CERAMICS LTD. Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY MINISTRY OF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant - importer has challenged the final findings dated 4.2.2003 by the Designated Authority and the impugned notification issued on 1.5.2003 under Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act imposing anti -dumping duty and has prayed for annulling the final findings and the notification imposing duties and seeking modification of the notification to the extent of the products manufactured by the domestic industry or to vary the anti -dumping duty corresponding to the different categories and grades.

(2.) ON 6.8.2001, the designated authority initiated the investigation on the basis of the petition filed by M/s. SPL Ceramics Ltd., M/s. H&R Johnson India Ltd. and M/s. Murudeshwar Ceramics Ltd. The designated authority notified its preliminary findings by notification dated 3.12.2001 with regard to anti -dumping investigations concerning imports of vitrified/porcelain tiles originating in or exported from China PR and UAE. Public hearing was held on 2.7.2002 to hear the interested parties. The authority made the public file available to all interested parties containing non -confidential version of the evidence submitted by various interested parties for inspection upon their request. Disclosure of essential facts, as required by Rule 16 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -Dumping Duties on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995, was made on 17.12.2003. In its final findings, the authority concluded that, vitrified/porcelain tiles were exported to India from UAE and China PR below its normal value resulting in dumping, the Indian industry had suffered material injury, and that the injury had been caused cumulatively by the imports from the subject countries.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant that the basis of the imposition of anti -dumping duty on the imported product is faulty. It was submitted that when the provisional anti -dumping duty was imposed, it was on a variable form of duty and when the final duty was imposed it was in the form of fixed Antidumping duty. It is the contention that change in the form of imposition of duty has put the importer appellant in a great disadvantage. He further submits that the authority should have granted an opportunity to the importer appellant to put forth his views on changing of the form of levy of duty, as no reasons were provided for change of the imposition of duty by the authority in the final findings. It was also submitted that due to change from variable to fixed, if imports are at a higher rate then the importer has to pay a higher anti -dumping duty. It was argued that the authority while imposing the anti -dumping duty has not considered the necessity to look into the proper description of article imported into India, and the petition of the Domestic Industry also did not give proper description of the article. It was argued that the appellant importer has cooperated in the investigation, and there was no evidence placed in the public file regarding the specific sizes of the tiles on which antidumping duty is to be imposed. It is also contended that the importer appellant has imported of vitrified tiles of the sizes which were not manufactured by the Domestic Producers and the objections raised on commercial and technical points by them were overlooked by the Designated Authority. It was submitted that the final findings of the Designated Authority was flawed as the article "Mosaic Tiles", which was not under consideration, was also taken into account for calculating the dumping margin and subsequent calculation of the injury. It was argued that if the data of importation of the Mosaic Tiles is excluded from the total imports of the product under consideration, then there will be no dumping. It was submitted that the scheme of anti -dumping duty warrants that there should be a definitive duty.