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 →

Bahru Stainless Sdn. Bhd Versus Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties/Ministry of Finance

2016 (10) TMI 639 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Imposition of ADD - Hot Rolled Flat Products of Stainless steel - import from Malaysia - N/N.28/2015-Cus ADD dated 5.6.2015 - volume of imports from Malaysia - Held that: - in terms of Rule 14 (d) of, the DA shall terminate the investigation if the value of import from particular country accounts for less than 3% of the total import of subject goods. In the present case, admittedly during POI the imports from Malaysia is above 3%. - Correctness of the import data - Held that: - the issue reg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

red for volume analysis. The argument of the appellant has been rejected by the DA who recorded that the appellant cannot be treated as producer of the subject goods and individual treatment cannot be granted to them for determination of their dumping margin. - For the purpose of construction the normal value in Malaysia the international price of major raw material and most efficient conversion of goods has been considered along with reasonable profit. - The decision in the case of Kumh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- when the import during POI gave a fair indication about quantum being above 3% there is no need to look into post POI data for investigation. - Appeal rejected - ADD rightly imposed - decided against appellant. - Anti-Dumping Appeal No.53169 of 2015 - Order No. 53443/2016 - Dated:- 9-9-2016 - Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President, Mr. S. K. Mohanty, Judicial Member and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Technical Member Appellants By: S/Shri S. Seetharaman with T D. Satish, Dhruv Gupta, Ankur Shar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ies, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Customs Notification No. 28/2015-Cus ADD dated 5.6.2015 issued by the Ministry of Finance, the present appeal is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Jindal Stainless Ltd. (Indian producer) approached the Designated Authority (DA) for initiating investigation on import of subject goods for imposition of anti-dumping duty. The DA initiated the investigation on 11.3.2014. After following the procedure set out as per Customs Tariff (Identific .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat the volume of import from Malaysia is de-minimis. During POI (April 2012 to June 2013) the import from Malaysia is only 3.59% of total imports. Post POI, the import is less than 3%. Ld. Counsel submitted that the DA relied on DGCI & S data and did not disclose the same to the appellant. This resulted in violation of principle of natural justice. Further, it was argued that imports from Malaysia are too insignificant cause injury to Domestic Industry (DI). 4. Ld. Counsel for the Domestic .....

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 claim regarding import from Malaysia being de-minimis is factually not correct. The import data for the POI has been correctly taken which is above de-minimis. 6. The Id. A.R. for the Revenue supported the findings of the Designated Authority and also AD levy by Customs Notification. 7. We have heard all the sides and examined the appeal records including written submissions. The appellant is also contesting levy of anti-dumping duty on imports from Malaysia. The main ground is that the export .....

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 seen from ASEAN-India FTA Agreement provides for concessional customs duty leviable on imports from Malaysia. It is noted that the DA specifically pointed out the possible misdeclaration of country of origin in order to avail preferential duty on imports. As per data analysed by the DA the subject goods coming from Malaysia covered by the certificate of origin issued by the concerned authorities in Malaysia are considered for volume analysis. The argument of the appellant has been rejected 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

 

 

 

 

 

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