Relief to Reliance Industries: CESTAT directs Re-Adjudication on Levy of Anti-dumping duty on Import of MEG on ground of Absence of Overall Injury Assessment [Read Order]

The New Delhi bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) granted relief to reliance industries limited for the imposition of anti-dumping duty on the import of ‘Mono Ethylene Glycol’ on the ground of Absence of overall injury assessment. 

Reliance Industries Limited, the appellant assessee was a domestic producer of ‘Mono Ethylene Glycol’ (MEG) in India, had filed this appeal to assail the Notification notifying that since the domestic industry had not suffered material injury in terms of the provisions contained in the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment, and Collection of Anti- Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 it would not be appropriate to recommend a levy of anti-dumping duty on the import of MEG. 

The assessee appealed against the final findings of the designated authority deciding not to recommend the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of MEG originating in or exported from the subject countries. 

Vipin Kumar Jain, Vishal Agarwal, Reena Asthana Khair, Rajesh Sharma, Tuhina Sinha, Shreya Dahiya, Vrinda Bagaria, Subham Jaiswal, Samarth Bajaj, and Nikhil Sharma appeared on behalf of the assessee. 

The counsel for the assessee contended that concerning the factors relevant for assessing the price injury of the domestic industry, the designated authority had relied only on the increase in profit and return on investment in the period of investigation as compared to 2019-20, and had ignored the fact that the profit and return on investment had remained significantly below 2017-18 and 2018-19 level. 

Also submitted is that selective examination for only one period cannot be made the basis for the determination of injury. 

Shobha Nath, the counsel for the designated authority contended that in the case of Nirma Limited vs. Union of India, the court held that While in a review investigation, a negative injury margin(considering duties are already imposed) may not necessarily warrant a finding that the industry was not suffering any material injury. 

The Bench observed that in the present case, had exclusively relied upon the marginal improvement in the period of investigation as compared to 2019-20 and had ignored the trends over the years before that and such selective examination, particularly in the present facts where the domestic industry itself had claimed injury since 2019-20, may defeat the entire purpose of injury assessment. 

The three-member bench comprising Dilip Gupta (President), Binu Tamata (Judicial), and Hemambika Priya (Technical) held that the designated authority would have to re-examine the matter by allowing both the assessee and the respondents to submit their written submissions. 

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates