TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r WTO Members. Hence, a rebuttable presumption of non-market economy status has been made in terms of para 8 (2) of Annexure I of AD Rules. The DA on analyzing the responses provided by the producers/exporters of the subject goods from China PR and the DI, concluded that there is significant government interference in the aluminium industry in China. Reliance was also placed on the findings of Canadian authorities in their anti-dumping and subsidy investigation. It was concluded that the price of major raw material, aluminium, is not market determined and hence, the market economy treatment was denied by the DA to the appellants. Impact of safeguard duty on imported raw material - Held that: - the transitional, product specific, safeguar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dr. Satish Chandra, President , Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Parthasarthi, Ankur Sharma and Darpan Bhugan, Advocates - for (M/s Technova) the appellant. Ms. Reena Asthana Khair, Shri Rajesh Sharma and Ms. Rita Jha, Advocates - for (M/s Fujifilm) the appellants. Shri Amit Singh, Advocate for DA and Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. Shri Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate, Shivar Patodia, Ms. Juhi Chawla and Mayank Singhal, Advocates - for (respondent 3 in Technova) the appellant. Shri Suhail Nathani and Somnath Shukla, Advocates ORDER These are four appeals against final findings dated 03/10/2012 by the Designated Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisional AD duty was levied with effect from 04/6/2012 vide Customs Notification No. 3/2012 -CUS (ADD). After following the set procedure in terms of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, the DA issued Final Findings on 03/10/12. AD duty was recommended only for China with reference to benchmark form for various types of subject goods. The impugned customs notification dated 03/12/2012 was issued imposing AD duties as recommended by the DA. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for three appellants - one Indian importer an two Chinese producers - all part of same group company - Fujifilm - submitted that the DA's Findings are based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I is not commensurate with the demand. 6. The learned Counsel for the DA supported the Final Findings of the DA. He submitted that price undercutting from China is significant during POI. In spite of increase in market share and capacity utilization the DI suffered injury as analyzed by the DA in his findings. 7. The learned AR for Revenue supported the Final Findings of DA and the AD duties levied by the impugned customs notification. He submitted that there is a causal link as per Rule 11 (2) and Annexure Il of AD Rules. There is increase in import and dumping. 8. We have heard the parties as above. Considered the appeal papers and written submissions. 9. The legality and correctness of levy of AD duties on subject goods are u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic industry who use this as raw material to produce subject goods. Noting that such imports by DI are only negligible, the DA concluded that the impact of safeguard duty on arriving at NIP is not significant. 11. The next point of contest was on erroneous fixation of NIP by the DA. We have perused the detailed analysis made by the DA in this regard. All the points raised now in appeal have been dealt with extensively by DA in the Final Findings. The methodology adopted for arriving at the NIP is well within the guidelines framed under AD Rules. The rate of return, costing parameters, differential treatment to violet and thermal plates, exclusion of selling/distribution cost, exchange note fluctuation etc. have all been taken into conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
