- within Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
- in India
Decision dated 27th April 2026
CESTAT Remands an Anti-Dumping Matter to DGTR for Re-determination of Non-Injurious Price
GKB Ophthalmics Limited had filed an appeal against the final finding issued by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies recommending anti-dumping duty on the imports of semi-finished ophthalmic lenses, particularly with regard to ‘nil’ rate of duty recommended for certain exporters. The main contention of the appeal was that the detailed calculations of the non-injurious price were not furnished to the domestic industry, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellant contended that the non-injurious price and resultantly, the injury margin had been incorrectly calculated. The appellant claimed that on issuance of disclosure statement, it requested the Authority for the disclosure of non-injurious price However, the appellant was not provided detailed working of the non-injurious price, and the final finding was issued. The appellant has claimed that the determination of non-injurious price was contrary to the provisions of the Rules. The appellant argued that it introduced new product types after 2017-18, leading to modification in raw material mix and hence, any change in utilization of raw materials or capacities cannot be considered as its inefficiency. Optimization based on production cost for different types, to remove the effect of such changes, resulted in unrealistic low cost of production.
The appellant further highlighted that the normal value was also determined based on optimised cost of production instead of actual cost of production, leading to the dumping margin being understated. It was also contended that certain lenses having refractive index above 1.6 had been erroneously excluded from the scope of the product under consideration.
The Designated Authority and the respondents argued that the domestic industry was duly provided NIP in Format ‘L’. It was also stated that the best utilization norm applied to cumulative data automatically accounts for the shift to a more cost-effective raw material. It was contended that the non-injurious price was determined as per the Annexure III of the Anti-Dumping Rules, which provides that inefficiencies shall be eliminated to determine a fair and competitive price. It was also stated that the methodology adopted was as per the practice.
The Tribunal while examining the issues observed that the information disclosed through Format ‘L’ was insufficient to understand the basis of variations between the figures originally claimed by domestic industry and those finally determined including the manner in which the optimisation has been done. The Tribunal while relying upon Rule 16 of the Anti-Dumping Rules as well as Article 6.9 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, held that the essential facts were not disclosed by the Authority regarding the computation of non-injurious price and optimisation of costs. Thus, it caused prejudice to the domestic industry since the non-injurious price formed the basis for determining injury margin and also influenced the constructed normal value.
On the issue concerning the exclusion of semi-finished ophthalmic lenses having a refractive index above 1.6, the Tribunal held that since the domestic industry did not produce or sell such goods, their import could not be said to cause injury to it. Hence, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the findings on this aspect.
Accordingly, the Tribunal has set aside the final findings to the extent that it recommended ‘nil’ rate of duty on the participating exporters and remanded the matter to the Designated Authority for a fresh determination of non-injurious price.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
