Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (10) TMI 661

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ontrolling effect on the activities of Samnam Korea. We are in agreement with the DA that the facts of the case indicate that no undue benefit accrued MCPI out of the above share holding arrangement in case of levy of AD duty. After noting the detailed reasoning recorded by the DA we find that there is no justification for treating MCPI as not eligible for DI. Faulty analysis of material injury to DI with reference to IOCL pricing - Held that: - IOCL has neither supported nor opposed the application for anti-dumping investigation. The other 2 producers of subject goods in India account for more than 50% of production. Hence, the DA is correct in analyzing the data furnished to arrive at conclusion. The absence of support by IOCL is not r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sis being arbitrary and on use of excessive discretion by DA - Held that: - No specific instance of improper discretionary decision was brought to our notice. As a statutory authority vested with the power to analyse and arrive at a clear finding, the DA acted within his mandate. Adverse finding cannot be ipso-facto basis of allegation of discretionary excess. ADD rightly imposed - appeal rejected - decided against appellant. - Anti Dumping COD Application No. 50484 of 2016, 50485, 5086, 5087, 5088,5089,5090 and 5091 and Appeal No. 50348 of 2016, 50348,50349,50350 and 50351 - Order No. 53518-53521/20162016 - Dated:- 14-9-2016 - Shri Justice Dre Satish Chandra, President, Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Shri B, Ravichandran, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... P, the Government issued Customs notification imposing AD duty. Another W.P. was filed thereafter. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 16/2/2016 granted liberty to the appellants to file appeals before the Tribunal under Section 9C of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 within two weeks. Accordingly, present appeals were filed. Having considered the above factual position we condone the delay in filing these appeals and take up the appeals for further disposal. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellants contested the Final Findings on various grounds. The main grounds argued are :- (a) the DA erred in concluding that DI suffered material injury due to dumped import of subject goods. The price of non-participating domestic unit (IOCL) is m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion among domestic units have also been considered. 6. The learned Counsel for the DA supported the Final Findings. He reiterated the DA's Findings, more specifically under paras 67 to 99 on price undercutting due to dumped imports. 7. The learned AR for Revenue drew our attention to provisions of Rule 16 of AD Rules and DA's Findings in para 93. 8. We have examined the grounds of appeals written submissions and carefully considered arguments of learned Counsels representing all the interested parties as above. The appellants (3 user industry of subject goods in India and the -Forth an Association representing such industry) are contesting the levy of AD duty on subject goods. 9. The first issue is on the status of MCPI .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd that the injury to DI not attributable to the same as nothing relevant was brought before the authority during investigation. In appeal also we find no evidence to this effect. 11. The impugned Findings were also contested on the violation of principles of natural justice. We have noted that the DA did follow the stage by stage procedure set out in the AD Rules. The appellants are aggrieved as no hearing was granted post disclosure by the DA. Admittedly, the DA had conducted public hearing of all the interested parties on 19/11/2014. After analysis of all submissions the DA notified disclosure of such analysis. Post disclosure the interested parties again submitted their comments. The appellant's plea for another hearing again is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... alysis by the DA. No specific instance of improper discretionary decision was brought to our notice. As a statutory authority vested with the power to analyse and arrive at a clear finding, the DA acted within his mandate. Adverse finding cannot be ipso-facto basis of allegation of discretionary excess. 13. We have also examined the case laws relied upon by the appellants. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Industries - (2006) 10 SCC 368 is regarding computation of non-injurious price based on best capacity utilization, being improper. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also examined scope of Rule 7 of AD Rules, and held the said Rule does not allow confidentiality of information against that very party. In the present .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates