INDIAN SPINNERS ASSOCIATION Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the imposition of definitive Anti -Dumping duty on the imports of Polyester Staple Fibre (PSE) from Korea R.P., Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand under Notification No. 43/2003 -Cus., dated 21st March 2003. The said imposition of duty was pursuant to Final Finding (Notification No. 22/1/2001 DGAD, dated 24th December 2002) of the Designated Authority in the Ministry of Commerce as under : -

(2.) Three out of Four appeals have been filed by the domestic consumers of PSF (imported as well as domestically produced) for spinning yarn and the fourth appeal is by the domestic industry producing PSF. Both groups constitute important segments of Indian industry. The innumerable yarn manufacturers are a large traditional provider of goods and employment and PSF manufacturers, though few, constitute a big part of highly capital intensive petrochemical industry. Thus, both interests are vital to the country and in a sense both are domestic industry, though the law relating to anti -dumping classify them as conflicting interests, PSF manufacturers as 'domestic industry' and yarn manufacturers as "importers'. Yarn manufacturer seek open sourcing of their raw materials and PSF industry seeks remunerative prices.

(3.) Though the appeals of the importers have raised several issues relating to the procedure adopted by the Designated Authority, during the hearing of the appeals, they have submitted that the final findings and notification imposing anti -dumping duty are required to be set aside on one ground alone, namely, the absence of material injury to the domestic industry. It was urged that the Tribunal may consider this issue alone first and give a decision so that other issues do not have to be gone into. In case, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the appeal is required to be allowed on the ground of absence of injury, then the case may be reposted for considering other aspects. This request was accepted as satisfaction of each of the ingredients (dumping, injury and casual link) is the requirement for imposition of anti -dumping duty and the arguments by all parties were restricted to the question of material injury.