Lawyers & Law Firms

Thai Multinational Seeks Removal Of Anti-Dumping Duty On Import Of Grinding Media Balls, Relief Denied By CESTAT

17 July 2020 7:34 AM GMT
Thai Multinational Seeks Removal Of Anti-Dumping Duty On Import Of Grinding Media Balls, Relief Denied By CESTAT
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?
Thai Multinational Seeks Removal Of Anti-Dumping Duty On Import Of Grinding Media Balls. Relief Denied By CESTAT.

The Larger Bench of the CESTAT, has denied relief against imposition of anti-dumping duty, to one of the leading global suppliers of Grinding Media Balls.

Magotteaux Co. Ltd, the exporter from Thailand, had filed an appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, against the extension of anti-dumping duty for a further period of 5 years, on the ground that the domestic industry, namely AIA Engineering Ltd. and Welcast Steels Ltd., were not suffering any injury, since the imports from Thailand were negligible, having less than 1% market share. It was further contended, that the domestic industry is earning superlative profits, and hence protection is not warranted.

The Tribunal by its order dated July 14, 2020 held that in a review investigation, what is to be seen is the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury in the future, and not the current levels of injury. Further, a low or an insignificant volume of imports, is not a relevant consideration in a sunset review, as Rule 14 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, has not been made applicable to reviews.

For the likelihood analysis, the Tribunal has examined the surplus production capacity of Magotteaux, in the context of availability of alternate markets. The Tribunal has held that for catering to the demand in North American market, the Appellant has plants in USA and Canada, plants in Brazil and Chile for the South American market, a plant in Belgium for the European market, and a plant in South Africa for the African market. The Thailand factory is, therefore, principally meant to cater to the demand of the Asian market. There are many large indigenous producers of subject goods in China, and therefore, the most attractive market for the Appellant, in the event of revocation of duty, would be India.

In view of the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the foreign exporter and upheld the duty notification, extending the anti-dumping duty for a period of 5 years.

The Domestic Industry was represented by Kochhar & Co. senior partner, Ms. Reena Khair and associates, Ms. Shreya Dahiya and Ms. Priyamwada Sinha, briefed by Advocate Rajesh Sharma from TPM Consultants and Maggoteaux was represented by Advocates Dinesh Aggarwal and Mayank Jain from M/s Khaitan & Co.

Click here to download the Order

Next Story