Markandey Katju JUDGMENT
Markandey Katju, J.
1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned final order dated 29.11.2000 passed by the (CEGAT) Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
The appellant is a multi-product company and has various business activities including manufacture of Pure Terephthalic (for short 'PTA'), which is used for the manufacture of polyester yarn (which in turn is used for manufacture of textiles). Apart from the manufacture of PTA, the appellant, inter alia, has a captive power plant from which it draws electricity. The appellant also draws electricity from the Grid for the manufacture of PTA. The cost of electricity forms a significant part of the cost of production. For the electricity drawn from the Grid, the appellant has to pay a tariff rate at the market price of the electricity, while regarding electricity drawn from the captive power plant the appellant transfers electricity at the market rate to its PTA unit.
3. The appellant, M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. filed an application dated 12.10.1998 seeking the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on PTA originating in, or exported from Japan, Malaysia, Spain and Taiwan. The Designated Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the DA') in the Ministry of Commerce initiated investigations on the said application in April 1999. The investigations culminated in the findings of the DA dated 20.4.2000, and on that basis there was imposition by the Central Government of anti- dumping duty on PTA originating or exported from Spain at the rate of Rs. 521 per M.T. vide Customs Notification No. 82/2000 dated 30th May, 2000 of the Department of Revenue. However, no duty was imposed on exports from the other countries.
4. The appellant filed an appeal before the CEGAT under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 against this Notification seeking enhancement of duty in the case of the exporter from Spain and imposition of duty on exports from the other countries mentioned in their petition.
The grievance of the appellant was that while the DA had reached its findings in the final finding dated 20th April, 2000 upholding the appellant's contention that exports from Japan and Malaysia were also at dumped prices and that the domestic Industry had suffered injury, yet no anti-dumping duty was recommended in respect of imports from Japan and Malaysia on the ground that the imports from these countries were above the non-injurious price and, therefore, there was no causal link between the dumped imports from these countries and the injury to the domestic industry. The appellant submitted that this finding was inconsistent with the determination that imports were at dumped prices and that domestic industry had suffered injury. They also submitted that the finding that imports from Japan and Malaysia were at non-injurious prices was also incorrect and was the result of faulty determination of the fair landed value in respect of the imported goods and non-injurious price in respect of the domestic manufacturer. The appellants sub........