KANORIA CHEMICALS & INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ANTI DUMPING AND ALLIED DUTIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY Notification No. dated April 20, 2006 the Central Government imposed anti -dumping duty on the imports of Pentaerythritol, originating in or exported from China PR and Sweden to India. The present appeal has been filed by the domestic industry, (M/s. Kanoria chemicals Ltd.), under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 against the sunset review notification No. dated 14.06.2011 of the Central Government read with Final Findings dated March 25, 2011 of the Designated Authority, in terms of which anti -dumping duty was discontinued in respect of imports of subject goods from Sweden, though anti -dumping duty continued in respect of imports of subject goods from china PR.

(2.) IN the Final Findings dated March 25, 2011 the Authority has held that the total imports from Sweden during the period of investigation were barely 81MT, which can not be treated as a representative volume of import for determination of individual dumping margin. On the issue of likelihood of recurrence of dumping or injury, in the event of revocation of duties, the Authority in para 58 of the final findings held as under:

(3.) PENTAERYTHRITOL is sold in two grades - technical grade and nitration grade; the only difference being of purity. Out of the total imports into India of subject goods from all sources, about 99% is of technical grade and 1% is nitration grade. The Authority has found a positive dumping margin for technical grade as reflected in paragraph 19 of the Findings. This indicates that were the imports to resume in future, they would be predominantly of technical grade, for which dumping continues in spite of antidumping duties being in force. In these circumstances, likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury can not be ruled out. The appellant also submitted that after revocation of duties by the impugned notification, substantial imports were coming from Sweden. They also stressed the point that in a sunset review, there is a rebuttable presumption that the conditions as they existed at the time of original investigations, continue to exist, and therefore the onus is on the exporter and not the domestic industry to rebut such presumption. They referred to a few case laws etc. which have been taken into account in the analysis below.