Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2010 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (1) TMI 413 - HC - Central ExciseAnti-Dumping duty- VMCL filed the writ petition. Fact of the case it that- (Tejas) a Banglore based company lodged an application with Designated Authority (DA), for imposition of anti dumping duty on SDH (Synchronous Digital Hierarchy) equipment. They alleged that the product is being dumped from China PR and Israel that the price reduction is high and that it being a domestic industry their performance deteriorated in terms of profits, return on investment, cash-flow and growth besides leaving adverse impact on employment and wages. Acting on said application, DA issued initiation notification dated 21.4.2009 in terms of Rule 5 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of ADD on Dumped Articles and Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 for investigation into the existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping of SDH equipment from the subject countries. M/s.Vuppulamritha Magnetic Components Limited, Hyderabad (VMCL), through their Counsel submitted preliminary objections on 16.6.2009 requesting DA to treat them as Indian producer, call for data/ information from other companies to determine whether Tejas is qualified to submit anti-dumping petition and reject the definition/criteria for classifying domestic producers as provided by Tejas in their petition. About three months thereafter DA published preliminary findings vide notification No.14/2/2009-DGAD, dated 07.9.2009. He came to conclusion that subject goods entered Indian market from subject countries at prices less than their normal values in the domestic markets of the exporting countries, that the dumping margins of subject goods are substantial and that the domestic industry suffered material injury caused by volume and price effect of dumped imports. Held that- Tejas is not a domestic industry and assumption of jurisdiction by DA on their application is erroneous and illegal. The two impugned notifications must therefore suffer invalidation. In the result, the writ petition is allowed as prayed for and initiation notification dated 21.04.2009 and the preliminary findings dated 07.09.2009 are accordingly set aside.
|