New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 1227 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (9) TMI 1227 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Legality and correctness of levy of Anti-Dumping duties - digital plates imported from China and Japan - Customs Notification No. 3/2012 -CUS (ADD) - Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - Chinese producers should have been considered as operating in market economy conditions - Held that: - the DA has recorded that in the past three years China PR .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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, safeguard duty was in force on the imports of aluminium coils from China PR from 23/3/2009 to 22/3/2011. Safeguard duty of 14% and 12% for first and second year were imposed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 consideration by the DA - No material point found to interfere with the reasoning adopted by the DA while arriving at the NIP. - Wrong determination of injury to DI - Held that: - there is material injury to DI caused by the dumped imports of subject goods. Recommendation was, thereupon, made for imposition of AD .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ation of delay in filing their appeals. As these appeals challenged customs notification issued on 03/12/2012 the statutory period for filing the appeal under Section 9C of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 expired on 03/3/2013. These appeals were filed on 28/3/2013, resulting in a delay of 26 days. The learned Counsel for the appellants explained the reasons for delay. The Counsel who had handled the matter was down with swine flue and hence process of filing got delayed. Medical records in support were .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

various types of subject goods from China/Japan. Provisional 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o 6 of Annexure I of the AD Rules are applicable to them. (b) there would be no injury from China, if the effect of safeguard duty imposed on import of aluminium flat rolled products are removed. These are raw material imported by DI which affected their production cost of subject goods. (c) the NIP was fixed wrongly. The enhanced capacity of DI was not considered in correct perspective by the DA. (d) there is no valid ground for the finding regarding injury. The DI production has increased by 4 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ellant in this case, submitted that the NIP calculation was not correctly made. The injury to DI was not correctly arrived at. Increase in production and market share are not the only criteria for determining injury. Though the demand increased by 3 times the capacity increase in DI 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

subject goods are under challenge. The first point of agitation is that the Chinese producers should have been considered as operating in market economy conditions. We note that the DA has recorded that in the past three years China PR has been treated as non-market economy in the anti-dumping investigations by other 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

no material reason to differ from such finding. 10. The second point was regarding impact of safeguard duty on imported raw material by the DI and consequently the determination NIP. The transitional, product specific, safeguard duty was in force on the imports of aluminium coils from China PR from 23/3/2009 to 22/3/2011. Safeguard duty of 14% and 12% for first and second year were imposed. The duty was to remedy the market disruption caused by increased imports. The DA examined the impact of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing 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 consideration by the DA. We find no material point in the present appeal to interfere with the reasoning adopted by the DA while arriving at the NIP. 12. The final point of contest by the appellants is relating to wrong determination of injury .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version