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 →

Eximcorp India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties/Ministry of Finance

Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty - Phenol - imported from South Africa - sunset review - mid term review - Notification No. 32/2015-Cus ADD dated 10.7.2015 - principles of natural justice - is injury caused to the DI due to import of subject goods? - closure of a manufacturing unit, HOCL during post POI - violation of Rule 23 of AD Rules - return on investment - Held that: - the DA determined the export price in respect of import from South Africa on the basis of best available information in acc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

countries. - Performance of HOCL - they were operating at full capacity in 2010-11 and thereafter, the production as well as sales declined. The lack of working capital was given as reason. This was attributed to the reason that dumping import affected realization of fair selling price in the domestic market. The injury margin has been calculated as per norms by the DA. There is no violation of Rule 23 in the present case - Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Fairdeal Polychem LLP vs. UOI [2016 (1) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellant. - Stay Application No. 52130 of 2015 and Anti-Dumping Appeal No.53487 of 2015 - Final Order No. 53462/2016 - Dated:- 12-9-2016 - Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, Mr. S.K. Mohenty, Judicial Member and Mr. B. Ravichandran, , Technical Present Shri Atul Gupta, T.D. Satish, Advocates for the appellants Present Shri Amit Singh, Advocate for the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce Present Shri Govind Dixit, A.R. for the Revenue Present Ms. Reena Khair, Shri Rajesh Sharma with Ms.Rit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds originating in or exported from South Africa. The AD duties were originally recommended in a finding dated 13.2.2003 and was imposed vide Customs Notification dated 24.3.2003.The mid term review was also conducted and was notified on 13.7.2007. The first sunset review was initiated on 10.8.2007 resulting in final findings dated 4.8.2008. Customs Notification was issued on 31.10.2008. Second mid term review was also conducted resulting in final finding dated 6.2.2013. Anti-dumping duty was con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 [ (AD Rules], the DA recommended continuation and definitive anti -dumping duty on subject goods originating in or exported from South Africa. 3. The Id. Counsel for the appellants submitted that there were only two unit manufacturing subject goods in India. HOCL closed down during post POI. This aspect was not examined by the DA. Further, the DA has violated Rule 23 of AD Rules as the review has not been completed within 12 months of initiation. I .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

as they have not participated in the investigation after filing of detailed questionnaire response. 5. Regarding violation of Rule 23, it is submitted that provisions of Rule 17 are made applicable to review under Rule 23 and as such the Central Government has power to extend the period of investigation. 6. Ld. Counsel for the DA submitted that HOCL has apart from other factors also suffered due to dumping . HOCL could not operate the plant to its peak capacity due to effect of dumping 7. Regard .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve and examined the appeal records including written submission. The appellants are contesting levy of anti-dumping duty on subject goods imported from South Africa. It is their claim that there is no injury to the DI due to import of subject goods. HOCL suffered due to other factors. SI Group, the other manufacturer, is doing well in this regard. We note that the DA determined the export price in respect of import from South Africa on the basis of best available information in accordance with R .....

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