Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Saint-Gobain Gyproc India Limited vs Designated Authority on 9 September, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing: 26.08.2016 Date of pronouncement: 09.09.2016 Anti-Dumping Appeal No. 58652 of 2013 Arising out of the Final Findings F.No.14/45/2010- DGAD dated 15.1.2013 passed by the Designated Authority, DGAD and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Customs Notification No.6/2013-Customs (ADD) dated 12.4.2013 by the Ministry of Finance). M/s Saint-Gobain Gyproc India Limited Appellants Vs. Designated Authority, Respondent
Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties/Ministry of Finance Appearance:
Present Mr. Sharad Bhansali & Sh. Jitendra Singh, Advocates for the appellants Present Shri Amit Singh, Advocate for the Designated Authority.
Present Shri Govind Dixit, A.R. for the Revenue Present Ms. Reena Khair, Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Rita Jha, Sh. Ankur Sharma and Shri Darpan Bhuyan, Advocates for interested party Coram:
Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. S. K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 53442/ 2016 Per B. Ravichandran:
This appeal is against Final Findings dated 15.1.2013 of the Designated Authority (the DA), Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Notification No.6/2013-Cus. ADD dated 12.4.2013 of Ministry of Finance.
2. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various products including plain gypsum boards (subject goods). They have approached the DA for initiation of investigation for imposing AD duty on import of subject goods. The DA initiated investigation on 27.07.2011 covering the period 1.1.2010 to 31.12.2010 (POI). After following the procedure in terms of Customs Tariff (Identification , Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 the DA recommended AD duty to be imposed on subject goods originating in or exported from China PR, Indonesia, Thailand and UAE. Notification No.6/2013-Cus. ADD dated 12.4.2013 was issued imposing AD duty. The appellant while supporting the imposition of AD duty, are aggrieved on the quantification of such duty in respect of Gypsemna, the producer exporter from UAE. The appellants main argument against the finding is that the DA should have rejected the cost of exporter from Saudi Arabia and UAE because of particular market condition prevailing in those countries. It is argued that one of the main raw material in the manufacture is gas, the price of which is controlled by the Government in those countries. Further, the normal value for subject goods produced by Gypsemna has not been correctly arrived at by the DA.
3. Ld. Counsel for the DA defended the findings. It was submitted that the dual pricing / controlled pricing of the gas in UAE has not been substantiated with any evidence. In fact, the Government of UAE submitted that there is no dual pricing. Regarding cost allocation for subject goods produced by Gypsemna they submitted that all evidences have been considered. Interest and depreciation only were allocated and not the whole cost. Regarding adjustment requested by the exporter, only time taken to reach full capacity is considered.
4. Ld. Counsel for Gypsemna submitted that the normal value and costing in respect of the subject goods produced by them have been correctly arrived at by the DA. The alleged related party transaction has also been examined by the DA for arriving at value based on normal transaction. Ld. AR also supported the findings of the DA.
5. Having heard the ld. Counsels for all the sides and upon perusal of the appeal papers including written submissions we find that while the appellant is in favour of imposition of AD duty, they are only questioning the quantification in respect of one of the producer exporter. First, regarding improper construction of normal value for Gypsemna in UAE, we note that no substantive documentary evidence has been furnished by the DI regarding dual pricing or favoured pricing in the supply of gas to the producer exporter. While arriving at the normal value for Gypsemna in respect of subject goods the DA had considered the objection of DI and after due verification of the project report etc. arrived at the value. We note that while constructing cost for the said producer exporter the DA has considered the standard accounting norms. The DA has noted that Gypsemna have sold the subject goods to independent entities as well as to a related company. The sales of subject goods to the related company have been noted to be in the ordinary course of trading and have been accepted by the authority for determination of normal value.
6. After careful consideration of the Final Findings and the objection raised in the present appeal, we find no merit in the appeal. There is no reason for us to interfere with the findings of the DA. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected.
(Pronounced on 09.09.2016).
(Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (S. K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) (B. Ravichandran) Member (Technical) Pant