TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for an individual exporter. Reference can be made to the decision of the Tribunal in Marino Panel Products Ltd. vs. DA [2015 (12) TMI 243 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)]. It has not been substantiated before us that ECI Israel is the only exporter of subject goods. As the export volume from a particular country is considered together the DA has taken the total volume of exports from Israel - We do not find any violation as adequate opportunity during all stages of investigation has been given to the appellants. The DA is well within its powers to arrive at the Final Finding based on post disclosure comments received from individual interested parties. The AD Rules do not contemplate another round of exchange of all data, post disclosure, among all the interested parties. In this context, we find no merit in the appellant's plea. Violation of principles of natural justice - Held that: - the basis of arriving at the conclusion on the volume effect and price effect has been disclosed to all the interested parties in terms of AD Rules. Transactionwise details of DGCI containing confidential information were not disclosed. We find this has not materially affected the effectiveness of defenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was imposed vide Customs Notification No. 132/2009 dated 08.12.2009. Consequent on Final Finding dated 19.10.2010 of the Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry (DA). definitive AD duty was imposed vide Customs Notification No. 125/2010 dated 16.12.2010. On appeal, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the DA for giving a post-decisional hearing to the interested parties and to issue Final Finding thereafter. The DA issued Final Findings on 10.02.2012 confirming the earlier finding dated 19.10.2010. The Domestic Industry (DI) again approached the DA for continuation of AD duties imposed vide Customs Notification dated 16.12.2010. The sunset review in accordance with Section 9A (5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was initiated on 06,12.2014. In the meantime, the AD duty imposed was extended upto 07.12.2015. The present appeals are against the Final Finding dated 05.02.2016 on completion of sunset review and Customs Notification No. 15/2016 dated 26.04.2016 imposing AD duty on the subject goods. 2. Before proceeding with the merits of the appeals, we note that there is a delay of 25 days in filing these appeals. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of dumping alone is not relevant. The likelihood of recurrence of dumping is also to be considered. (b) There is no categorical evidence or finding to the effect that there is only one exporter from Israel. The DA correctly made cumulative assessment of imports from China and Israel. Israel cannot be excluded unless the whole country's export is without dumping. The case laws on similar issues were relied upon. (c) Regarding change in the disclosed data of HETC, it was submitted that revised disclosure is relevant to the party concerned and not to all the parties in the investigation. (d) The issue relating to reliance placed data from private (OVUM report) it is submitted that the data was provided by DI in support of their petition. The analysis and finding were not based on that report alone. The investigation by DA looks into all aspects including various data submitted by the interested parties. The initiation of AD investigation as well as the Final Finding on original investigation were also challenged on this ground before the Tribunal which were dismissed. (e) Regarding classification of parts covered by more items then subject goods, it is submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d opportunity to put up their defence. We are not able to appreciate this line of argument. The material facts as required under Rule 16 of AD Rules have been disclosed and notified to all the interested parties. Apparently the data relating to HETC was re-examined based on the inputs received and found to be de minimis and accordingly Final Findings were issued. Such disclosure of relevant data pertaining to a particular interested party has been corrected based on submissions made after disclosure. The appellants are not apparently linked to the said data and analysis which is relevant only to HETC. We do not find any violation as adequate opportunity during all stages of investigation has been given to the appellants. The DA is well within its powers to arrive at the Final Finding based on post disclosure comments received from individual interested parties. The AD Rules do not contemplate another round of exchange of all data, post disclosure, among all the interested parties. In this context, we find no merit in the appellant's plea. 8. The appellants also pleaded violation of principles of natural justice with reference to non-disclosure of DGCI data. The appellants re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
