Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Indian Graphite Manufacturers ... vs Ministry Of Finance, Designated ... on 13 April, 2006
ORDER K.C. Mamgain, Member (T)
1. This appeal is filed on behalf of domestic industry challenging the findings of the Designated Authority dated 9.2.2003 in so far as they relate to USA, Italy, France, Spain, Austria, Belgium and Germany, recommending discontinuation of anti-dumping duty on graphite electrodes (UHP) exported to India from the subject countries and withdrawal of duty on graphite electrodes (NPG) originating in and exported from China by M/s. Chengdu Rongguang Carbon Co. Ltd. (Producer) and Liao Yang Carbon Factory (Producer and exporter) and Lioning Jiayi Metals & Minerals Co. Ltd., (Trader) and recommending reduction of anti-dumping duty in case of Tianjin Jinghai Carbon Plant (Producer) and exported through Liaoning Jiayi Metals & Minerals Co. Ltd. (Trader) and notification No. 101/2003-Cus. dated 7.7.2003 and notification No. 102/2003-Cus. dated 7.7.2003 giving effect to the recommendation of the Designated Authority.
2. Statement of Facts.
On the basis of the complaint filed by M/s. Indian Graphite Manufacturers Association on behalf of the domestic industry and on the basis of the final findings of Designated Authority dated 27.3.1998, recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty on import of graphite electrodes originating in and exported from USA, China PR, Italy, France, Spain, Austria, Belgium and Germany, the Central Government imposed anti-dumping duty vide notification No. 20/98-Cus. dated 5.5.98. Sunset review of this notification was initiated before the expiry of 5 years from the date of issue of this notification and under notification No. 109/2002-Cus. dated 10.10.2002 and notification No. 12/2003-Cus. dated 20.1.2003 anti-dumping duties were extended up to 20.4.2003. In terms of Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act read with Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Anti Dumping Rules) the Designated Authority initiated the sunset review vide notification dated 17.5.2002 to examine the continuation of imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of graphite electrodes. The period of investigation was from 1.4.2001 to 31.3.2002. Public hearing was given by the designated authority on 9.9.2002 and written submissions were submitted by the appellants on 16.9.2002. The appellants received copies of the written submissions filed by various interested parties to the investigation and filed rejoinder to such written submissions on 23.9.2002. The Designated Authority issued disclosure statement on 27.12.2002. After receipt of the comments on disclosure statement, the Designated Authority issued final findings on 9.4.2003 recommending anti-dumping duty on Tianjin Jinghai Carbon Plant (Producer) and Liaoning Jiayi Metals and Minerals Co. Ltd. (Trader) at the rate of U.S.$ 234.54 per MT and on all other residuary exporters/producers from China at rate of U.S. $ 508.506 per MT. Based on the recommendation of the Designated Authority, the Central Government issued notification No. 101/2003-Customs dated 7.7.2003 notified anti-dumping duties on import of graphite electrodes originating in or exported from China PR, by Tianjin Jinghai Carbon Plant (Producer) and Liaoning Jiayi Metals and Minerals Co. Ltd. (Trader) and all other residuary exporters/producers from China who did not co-operate in the investigation and rescinded notification No. 20/1998-Cus. dated 5.5.98 by notification No. 102/2003-Cus. dated 7.7.2003.
3. Arguments on behalf of the domestic industry.
It was argued that the Designated Authority has failed to examine the parameters of sunset review which are different from material injury test. The D.A. has failed to take into consideration the tests which are required to be applied under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act. The tests and parameters applicable for assessment of material injury cannot be applied in a case of sunset review. It was argued that as per Article 11.3 of W.T.O. Agreement, the purpose and scope of an expiry review is to establish whether or not the expiry would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. It has to be indicated by evidence of continued dumping and injury or evidence that the removal of injury is partly or solely due to the existence of measures or evidence that circumstances of the exporters, or market conditions, are such that they would indicate the likelihood of further injurious dumping. The focus shifts in an expiry review to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. If there is still dumping and/or injury it can be concluded that the expiry or the repeal of the measures will lead to continuation of dumping and injury. If dumping and/or injury have totally or partly been removed the question is whether or not there is a likelihood of a recurrence of dumping and/or injury. The circumstances in the review proceedings are necessarily affected by the measures in force because the situation of the domestic industry would usually be worse without the protection against unfair competition. The existence of anti-dumping measures implies the elimination of injury. A review investigation should lead to a finding of no injury because of the existing measures. Consequently, within the framework of a review investigation, the various injury factors cannot be interpreted meaningfully in the same way as in an original anti-dumping initiation. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vinati Organics Ltd. v. Designated Authority, .
3.1. It was further argued that the Designated Authority failed to take into account the submission of the appellants that the adjustment of 20% on account of quality difference could not have been adopted without further examination of their quality during the period of investigation for review. There was no basis given by the exporters to suggest that the quality difference to such extent even after more than 5 years exists and there should have been fresh examination. It was also argued that in case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority, , it was held that "process of manufacture is not a relevant factor under anti-dumping law. Quality difference is also not material. The imported goods and domestically produced goods have the same use and have been correctly held to be 'like article' by the Designated Authority." Reliance was also placed in the case of DSM Idemitsu Limited v. Designated Authority, , where it was held that The plea of the appellants' counsel is not convincing since he did not adduce any evidence/technical literature with reference to process of manufacture to show that product manufactured by the domestic manufacturers was different from that exported into India.--------- Difference in quality will not make an article as different and Designated Authority was right in observing 'that the fact that qualities may be different, does not imply that the imported product and the domestic are not like articles.
M/s. Panchmahal Steel has given opinion that China's product are as good as Indian product. Therefore, there was no need to give 20% adjustment in quality.
3.2 It was also argued that under Section 9A(5) designated authority can either recommend continuation of such duty or cessation of such duty but he cannot modify the quantum of duty. It was pointed out to the Designated Authority that if the duties are discontinued at this juncture, then there is unambiguous indication that the cessation of anti-dumping duties is likely to lead to recurrence of dumping from the same sources all over again. No examination was done by the Designated Authority on this ground. It was also argued that when duty was imposed, there was only one exporter from China but in the sunset review, three persons have been included. Reliance was also placed on the decision of W.T.O. Panel in WT/DS 244, Volume AB/R dated 15.12.2004, report of U.S. Sunset on Carbon Steel imports from Japan (Para 103-104).
3.3 The Designated Authority has not checked the accuracy of information given by M/s. SGL Carbon regarding their price as required under Rule 8 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. Commercial behaviour of SGL by diverting their exports from Poland and dumping there from and not exporting the goods during the period of investigation shows that their prices cannot be relied upon without investigation. They have not responded to the questionnaire and did not send information except the broad prices for a particular region. It was also argued that UCAR did not participate at any stage but no finding has been given about this company by the D.A.
4. Arguments on behalf of exporters/importers.
Rule 23 of Anti-Dumping Rules covers all types of reviews. Provisions of Rules 6 to 20 of the Anti-Dumping Rules except Rules 12 to 15 are applicable for review. Therefore, the Designated Authority is required to make a fresh determination of dumping and injury to domestic industry and to recommend anti-dumping duty which is required to be imposed for removal of injury to domestic industry. Under Section 9A(5), the Designated Authority has to determine the duty which is not likely to lead continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The provisions of Section 9A(5) should be read with the provisions of Section 9A(1). Therefore, in sunset review, the Designated Authority can propose modification of quantum of duty imposed earlier. This is also clear from the provisions of Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act which provides for giving refund where importer has paid anti-dumping duty imposed under Sub-section 1 of Section 9A in excess of actual margin of dumping in relation to article. Therefore, under Section 9A(5) lower anti-dumping duty can be imposed than the original anti-dumping duty imposed under Section 9A(1). Therefore, the challenge of the domestic industry for reduction of duty for imports from China in case of producers whose goods were exported by Liaoning Jiayi Metals and Minerals Co. Ltd. is as per provisions of law. It was also argued that in sunset review, the entire procedure for determination of fresh anti-dumping duty is followed. All the interested parties are allowed to participate init. Therefore, the separate duties can be fixed for separate exporter based on the evidence produced by them. Sunset review cannot remain limited to only those very exporters who earlier participated in an initial imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty. During sunset review, if from the same country, new exporters come forward and cooperate with the investigation and establish from their record that they are not dumping or margin of dumping is less than what was fixed at the initial stage of definitive anti-dumping duty, then they can do so as there is no prohibition for the same under the law.
4.1 It was also argued that where landed value of imported goods is more than non-injurious price, then there is no reason for imposing anti-dumping duty in such cases. Therefore, D.A. has correctly recommended withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on graphite electrodes (UHP).
4.2 The Designated Authority is required to examine the conditions prevalent at the time of sunset review and to come to the conclusion whether there is likelihood of injury on the basis of such situation. WTO's decision referred to by the appellants in the case of carbon steel imports from Japan is for whether anti-dumping duty to be continued or not but it does not relate to whether duty can be modified or not. According to Indian law, as stated above, duty can be modified and, accordingly, duty of U.S.$ 234.54 per MT was correctly recommended by the Designated Authority. The adjustment of 20% in quality of electrodes was based on the evidence on record. This was disclosed in the disclosure statement and no contrary evidence was submitted by the domestic industry to challenge this position. The adjustment of quality is permitted. Reference was made to para 48 of the Commission Regulation (EEC No. 406 to 88 of 23.12.1988).
4.3 On behalf of M/s SGL Carbon, it was argued that under sunset review, according to Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, the Designated Authority is required to frame an opinion whether cessation of anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. For framing such opinion, the following factors become relevant:
(1) How domestic industry performed in the Interrangum period after imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty and till the time of sunset review. To examine this, the D.A. has to consider all 15 parameters prescribed for the said purpose.
(2) Change in the prices in the exporting countries and International market has to be examined.
(3) It has also to be examined whether domestic industry is exploiting the situation by raising the prices above the International level by taking advantage of anti-dumping duty.
The Designated Authority has taken into consideration the first two factors and come to the conclusion that only in respect of imports from China PR, there is dumping and, accordingly recommended anti-dumping duty which cannot be more than the margin of dumping. The D.A. has also noted that imports of graphite electrodes (UHP) are having higher landed price in India than non-injurious price for domestic industry. Therefore, there is no need of imposition of any anti-dumping duty. M/s. SGL Carbon had supplied the entire information which was necessary.
5. Arguments on behalf of the Designated Authority.
It was argued that under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, the Designated Authority is required to examine whether after withdrawal of anti-dumping duty, it will not lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The sunset review under Section 9A(5) is done to examine the effect of anti-dumping measures taken during the period of imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty and the period of its likely expiry. If the Designated Authority, on examination, comes to conclusion that removal of duty will not cause injury to the domestic industry, he can recommend cessation of anti-dumping duty. However, when he finds that removal of anti-dumping duty will cause injury to domestic industry or there may be a recurrence of dumping, he may recommend continuation of anti-dumping duty at the level of dumping, margin or non-injurious price. The D.A. has given his opinion about the continuation or cessation of anti-dumping duty at page 65 of the paper book. It was also argued that information regarding prices of graphite electrodes submitted by SGL Carbon was accepted by the Designated Authority to be correct. Under Rule 8 of the Anti-dumping Rules, the Designated Authority is required to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of the information supplied by the interested parties upon which its findings are based. The information can be found to be correct not necessarily by visiting the manufacturing unit of the supplier of the information and working out the costs but it can be based on other objective basis like information available on record of the Designated Authority, information contained in published International magazine where prices are published for different products for different regions. Therefore, the appellant's plea that verification of the prices was not done in respect of M/s. SGL Carbon should not be accepted. The prices were disclosed to the various interested parties in the disclosure statement. Since nobody has objected to the price declared by M/s SGL Carbon for the different regions, therefore, the Designated Authority was satisfied about its accuracy and taken it into account in forming his opinion on continuation or cessation of anti-dumping duty.
5.2. It was also argued that although UCAR has not participated in these proceedings but non-cooperation itself does not mean that a correct decision should not be taken by the Designated Authority. Attention was drawn to para 11.21 of the paper book No. 2 filed by the domestic industry (page No. 014) where in the review proceeding concerning silicon carbide from China, Norway, Poland, Russia and Ukraine, it was concluded that there was no imminent risk of a recurrence of injury caused by Norwegian imports. Although the Norwegian exporters did not fully co-operate, the evidence available indicated that the Norwegian product was mostly present in the high quality market segment, where higher prices prevailed. In the light of the previous pricing behaviour of Norwegian producers which had led to their prices being generally in line with those of Community producers, even at the expense of a loss of market share, it appeared unlikely that the expiry of the undertakings previously in force would lead to an imminent recurrence of dumped imports and injury resulting there from. Since UCAR were exporting graphite (UHP) and there had been no import of this product from them and the International prices of the product were higher than the non-injurious prices fixed for the product, therefore, the Designated Authority was correct in recommending cessation of duty for graphite (UHP).
Reasons
6. We have considered the submissions of all sides. Under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the anti-dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition subject to condition that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period of five years and such further period shall commence from the date of order of such extension.. The review is done by the Designated Authority under Rule 23 of Anti Dumping Rules. According to Rule 23 of Anti Dumping Rules, the Designated Authority shall, from time to time, review the need for continued imposition of anti-dumping duty and shall, if it is satisfied on the basis of information received by it that there is no justification for continued imposition of such duty recommend to Central Government for its withdrawal. In case of review, the provisions of Sections 6 to 11 and 16 to 20 of the Anti Dumping Rules are applicable. The sunset review has therefore to be undertaken under Section 9A(5) before expiry of five years and for recommending continuation or cessation of such duty. The Designated Authority has to frame opinion whether cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Thus, the test required for framing the opinion whether the cessation of anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, the relevant factors to come to such conclusion have to be taken into consideration. The relevant factors may be the change in the pattern of the production, demand and requirement of the dumped product in the importing country since the imposition of anti dumping duty. The change in the prices in the exporting countries and International market has also to be considered. The prescribed parameter for injury to the domestic industry and also whether domestic industry is exploiting the situation by raising the prices above the International level by taking advantage of anti-dumping duty, is also required to be considered. After taking into consideration these relevant factors, the Designated Authority has to analyse and project the effect of repeal or expiry of anti-dumping measures by examining the various factors injuring the domestic industry within the reasonable foreseeable future and frame the opinion whether discontinuation of the anti dumping duty will lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. We find that the Designated Authority has examined various factors for framing his opinion and has given finding that during the period of investigation there has been no import of ultra power grade (UHP) graphite electrodes in India. The Designated Authority, therefore, could not evaluate the ex-factory price to India for UHP grade. Since dumping margin of UHP grade cannot be evaluated, the submissions of continuation of anti dumping duty and injury were examined by the Authority. Under Para 5(1), the Authority observed that "the Industry has stated that the exporter has multi-national and multi location production facilities. The exporter uses these facilities strategically to continue dumping causing injury to the domestic industry. Thus, there is an unambiguous indication that cessation of anti-dumping duties is likely to lead to recurrence of dumping from the same sources all over again. The authority notes that M/s. SGL Carbon have indicated their export prices to other parts of the globe during 2001. The average export prices to the Far East, Middle East is *** $/MT. The average export price of their global exports is ***$/MT. With the exchange rate and customs duties as prevalent during the POI on the basis of the export prices for the Asian region, it is noticed that the average landed value if exported to India at the price of the Asian region would come to ***$/MT (Rs. ***/MT). The Non Injurious price for the UHP grade during this period has been worked out to Rs. ***/MT (***$/MT). This implies that the presumption that the injury would have reoccurred if the anti-dumping duty is withdrawn is not tenable since even without the levy of anti-dumping duties, the landed value is more than the Non-Injurious Price. Also it may not be appropriate to presume that M/s. SGL Carbon is dumping the goods all over the globe and is facing severe losses. Even if their least export price of ***$/MT is picked up, it would imply a landed value of ***$/MT (Rs. ***/MT). Therefore, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence that if the anti-dumping duties were withdrawn, the dumping and injury will recur."
In para D(b) under heading conclusion, the Designated Authority has given finding that "the various economic indicators and injury parameters imply that the cessation of anti dumping duty on the subject goods will not lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and therefore the Authority recommends discontinuance of anti dumping duty on Graphite Electrodes (UHP) exported to India from subject countries except China.
7. In respect of Normal Power Grade, the Authority under para 5 at page 56 of the paper book, has examined the requirement under Section 9A(5) for cessation or continuation of the anti dumping duty and observed at page 57 of the paper book that since under the present investigation it is to be evaluated as to whether cessation of anti dumping duties would lead to continuance or recurrence of dumping and injury, the Authority has considered appropriate injury parameters as indicated in Annexure II(iv) of the Rules to evaluate this aspect and after examining the economic parameters in the case of domestic industry relating to Normal Power Grade Electrodes from PR China and that dumping margins for the cooperating and non-cooperating exporters have been evaluated more than deminimis. The Authority has evaluated the landed value of the dumped goods by considering applicable customs duty on assessable value except duty levied under Section 3, 3A, 8B & 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and compared the same with the Non-Injurious Price determined for the Domestic Industry during the period of investigation to arrive at the injury margins.
The Authority notes the submissions made on the market structure and the pricing policy of multi-national companies which would cause injury if the anti-dumping duties were removed and also the analysis of economic indicator imply that the industry has improved its performance and the economic indicator imply that the cessation of anti-dumping duty on the subject goods from the subject countries will not lead to continuance or recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry.
Accordingly the D.A. recommended discontinuance of the anti-dumping duty on UHP grade from the subject countries except China and recommended the amount of anti-dumping duty equal to the margin of dumping or lower so as to remove the injury to the domestic industry accrued on account of dumping in case of Normal Power Grade originating in or exported from People's Republic of China.
Thus, it is clear that the claim of the Domestic Industry that Designated Authority has not examined the parameters for sunset review which are different from material injury test, is not correct. The D.A. has taken into consideration the tests which are required to be applied under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act. The Designated Authority has interpreted various factors meaningfully and their effect on likely injury in future. Thus, the Designated Authority has taken into consideration the possible threat to the domestic industry and resultant injury that may be caused to them on account of discontinuation of anti dumping duty.
8. We find that it has been argued by the Domestic Industry that the Designated Authority has given adjustment of 20% on account of quality difference without further examination of their quality during the period of investigation for review. While determining the normal value, the Designated Authority has considered that consumption of China electrodes is higher by 20% and therefore, the landed value of import is required to be increased by 20% or alternatively, cost of production is required to be reduced by 20% while comparing the domestic industry prices for determining the injury. We find that in the disclosure statement dated 27.12.2002, the D.A. has notified that electrodes of China's exporters continued to be inferior as was admitted by the Indian Producer at the time of oral hearing. Due to inferior quality, the consumption of China's electrodes is higher by 20% as compared with the electrodes produced by the Domestic Industry. The Authority has acknowledged this in the original investigation also. In response to this, no rebuttal was given by the Domestic Industry and Panchmahal Steel on whose letter now the appellants are placing reliance has only stated that they have not experienced any technical problem. The letter is silent on consumption pattern. On the other hand, M/s. Arihant Sinotech Corp. has stated that Chinese electrodes are inferior in quality and their consumption is 20% higher. Therefore, we find that in the absence of any evidence contrary to what was disclosed to the domestic industry in the disclosure statement, the Designated Authority has correctly given adjustment in the export price to the electrodes from China's exporters for determination of ex-factory price. The decisions relied upon by the domestic industry in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority and DSM Idemitsu Limited v. Designated Authority (Supra) are not relevant on the issue as these decisions are in respect of determination of like articles where quality does not make a difference in determining whether products are like articles or not. These decisions are not relevant for determination of ex-factory price where adjustment has been given in value due to inferior quality.
9. We find that it is also challenged that under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, the Designated Authority can recommend cessation or continuation of the anti dumping duty which was originally imposed. He cannot recommend change in the rate of such duty. We find that this plea is not correct Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act read as The anti-dumping duty imposed under this section shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition:
Provided that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a farther period of five years and such further period shall commence from the date of order of such extension.
Provided further that where a review initiated before the expiry of the aforesaid period of five years has not come to a conclusion before such expiry, the anti-dumping duty may continue to remain in force pending the outcome of such a review for a further period not exceeding one year.
From the first proviso, it is clear that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period of five years. The meaning of such duty in this sub section is the definitive anti dumping duty. It cannot be quantum of duty. The quantum of duty is determined in the review proceeding by following the entire procedure which is required to be followed for determining the definitive anti dumping duty. Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act gives power to the Central Government for imposing anti dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping. Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act provides that where an importer proves to the satisfaction of the Central Government that he has paid any anti-dumping duty imposed under Sub-section (1) of Section 9A on any article, in excess of the actual margin of dumping in relation to such article, he shall be entitled to refund of such excess duty.. Thus, if Sections 9A(1), 9A(5) and 9AA are read together, the effect will be that by review under Section 9A(5) the Designated Authority can recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty which can be equal to the margin of dumping and if he is of the opinion that withdrawal of duty will cause injury to the domestic industry, he may recommend any amount upto the margin of dumping to remove the injury for continued protection of the domestic industry. Therefore, the D.A. can recommend the amount of anti-dumping duty different from the amount of duty imposed at the time of initial imposition of definitive anti dumping duty. The D.A. has correctly recommended the anti-dumping duty of 234.54 Dollar per M.T. in case of Tianjin Jinghai Carbon Plant (Producer) and Liaoning Jiayi Metals and Minerals Co. Ltd. (Trader). It is legally correct and according to the provisions of law. The purpose of review will be frustrated if D.A. cannot recommend higher or lower anti dumping duty than the original definitive anti dumping duty.
10. It is also pleaded that the D.A. has not checked the accuracy of the information given by M/s.SGL Carbon regarding their price as required under Rule 8. This plea is not acceptable as the prices were disclosed to all the interested parties and nobody has objected to such prices. When there is no challenge about the accuracy of such prices, it has to be taken as correct.
11. It was also argued that separate amount of duties have been recommended for two new exporters from China which had not participated in original anti-dumping investigation. We find that there is no bar if during the review proceedings any new exporters from the country under investigation comes forward and cooperate in the investigation and gets anti-dumping duty fixed for them on the basis of the record produced before the Designated Authority. Therefore, there is no merits in this argument.
12. In case of UCAR, since they were exporting only UHP electrodes, therefore, even if they have not participated in the sunset review, the finding of the Designated Authority that there have been import of UHP electrodes at a price higher than non-injurious price, the withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on UHP graphite electrodes is also correctly applicable on UCAR also. Similar decision is mentioned in para 11.21 of the EC Anti-Dumping Law - A Commentary on Regulation 384/96 by Dr. Wolf-Gang Meller, DG-I, EC, Nicholas Kaan, Barrister, Legal Service, EC and Dr. Hans-Adolf Neumann, Director DG-I, EC, 1998 Edition, where in the review proceedings, concerning silicon carbide from China, Norway, Poland, Russia ad Ukraine, were considered and Norwegian exporters did not co-operate but evidence available indicated that the Norwegian product was mostly present in the high quality market segment, where higher prices prevailed. It appeared unlikely that the expiry of the undertakings previously in force would lead to an imminent recurrence of dumped imports and injury resulting therefrom. The opposite conclusion was reached with regard to exporters in China, Poland, Russia and Ukraine, which significantly undercut prices charged by the Community. Therefore D.A. has correctly recommended the withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on imports of UHP electrodes.
13. In view of the above, we do not find merit in the appeal and the appeal is, accordingly, rejected.
(Pronounced in the open court on (sic)4.2006)