OSWAL WOOLLEN MILLS LTD Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals are directed against the same "Final Findings" dated 24th December, 1998 - of the Designated Authority with regard to imposition of anti -dumping duty on imported Acrylic Fibre from Japan, Portugal, Spain and Italy. M/s Marubeni Corporation are the foreign exporters from Japan while M/s Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. are Indian importers of the goods.

(2.) THE Designated Authority gave the following findings in the order dated 24th December, 1998 : -

(3.) M /s. Marubeni Corporation submits that they are an export house engaged in the export of, inter aha, acrylic fibre to India. The acrylic fibre in question is not manufactured by them. It is manufactured by the producers mentioned in the impugned order i.e. Asahi Chemicals Industries Ltd., Mitsubishi Rayon Co.Ltd. and Toyobo Co. Ltd. The producers themselves were not exporting the goods to India. The investigation by the Designated Authority had covered the Japanese producers as well as the exporter. The investigation also reached the finding that the appellants were not dumping the goods but the sale price of the Japanese producers to the export house was lower than their normal domestic sale price. Accordingly, anti -dumping duties have been imposed on the three producers and "any other exporter". It has been submitted that the Customs authorities have been adopting the landed price of Rs. 81.36 which is the residuary rate for the exports of "any other exporter" in respect of all exports by the appellants irrespective of whether the goods were the produce of producers in whose case lower landed price at Rs. 77.09 and Rs. 79.57 have been fixed under the final findings and subsequently notified by the Central Government. It has been submitted that adopting the landed price of Rs. 81.36 without regard to the manufacturer of the exported goods is contrary to law as well as the findings in the order of the D.A. Reference in this context has been made to Rule 17(3) of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti -Dumping Duty on Dumpted Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1985 which stipulates that "The Designated Authority shall determine individual margin of dumping for each known exporter or producer concerned of the article under investigation." The appellants contend that in the instant case since dumping margin has been determined for the three producers, the duty should be as applicable to the produce of each of the producers and not as applicable to other exporters. The appellants also submit that the goods in question are easily identifiable as the produce of individual manufacturers in view of the brand names used etc. and they would be in a position to satisfy the Customs authorities at the time of import of the goods that the goods in question are the produce of particular producers.