Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Sandeep Organics Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Vipur Enterprises, M/s. Shlok Chemicals and M/s. B.M. Jain & Sons Pvt. Ltd. Versus Designated Authority, DGAD, Mof

2016 (10) TMI 155 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Withdrawal of Anti Dumping Duty - retrospective effect or prospective effect - Sodium Tri Poly Phosphate - import from China PR - closure of STPP plant and no domestic industry for STPP in India - withdrawal of anti dumping duty vide notification no. 13/2012-Cus dated 22.02.2012 which rescinded the earlier notification no.58/201 1-Cus dated 8.7.2011. - Held that: - submission sought from Id. Counsel for the appellants as to provision under which the relief is sought by them, with retrospective e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri Darpan Bhuyan, Shri Dhruv Gupta and Shri T.D. Satish, Advocates Rep. by Shri Amit Singh, Advocate for Designated Authority. Rep. by Shri Govind Dixit, AR for the Revenue. ORDER There are four appeals against the final finding dated 10.02.2012 of Designated Authority (DA), Directorate of Anti-dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and consequent notification no. 13/2012-Cus dated 22.02.2012 imposing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

posed vide notification no.96.10-Cus dated 21.09.2010. After due inquiry, the DA notified final finding, recommending definitive anti-dumping duty on the imports of subject goods originating in or exported from China PR. The definitive Anti-dumping duty was imposed vide Customs Notification no.58/2011-Cus dated 8.7.2011. 3. M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. vide their letter dated 21.07.2011 informed the DA that they have closed down the STPP Plant and there is no domestic industry for STPP in India. 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

us dated 22.02.2012, which rescinded the earlier notification no.58/201 1-Cus dated 8.7.2011. 4. The common plea of all the appellants in the present appeals is that no anti-dumping duty can be levied from the date of closure of plant of domestic manufacturer i.e. 1.3.2011 till the actual revocation of duty viz. 22.02.2012. It was argued that the anti-dumping duty is to eliminate injustice caused to the domestic industry by unfair trade practices of dumping. In the present case, when there is no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the procedure laid-down by the law. Thereafter, on receipt of the intimation about stoppage of the production by the domestic industry, the Designated Authority exercising his powers under Rule 23, recommended for revocation of the said anti-dumping duty. There is no provision for recommending revocation of anti-dumping duty with retrospective effect. As such, Id. Counsel for the Designated Authority submitted that the Designated Authority has followed the laid down procedure and there is nothi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is that the said withdrawal should have been from the date of closure of manufacture by the domestic industry. We have perused the impugned order dated 10.02.2012. It is clear that both during initial proceedings of imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty and of definitive anti-dumping duty, all the interested parties have taken part in the proceedings. The designated Authority followed the procedure and there is no contest on these admitted facts. We find that the following observation by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the imposition of the duty by the Central Government, M/s. Tata Chemicals and M/s. Rohdia informed the Authority about stoppage of production of subject goods by them. Even other interested parties did not bring the acts to the notice of the Authority with documentary evidence. Under the Rules, the Designated Authority has no power either to impose or terminate duty. The Rules empower the Designated Authority only to investigate and to recommend. By the time the concerned domestic producers bro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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