Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (11) TMI 34 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (11) TMI 34 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2017 (346) E.L.T. 140 (Tri. - Del.) - Quantification of rate of ADD - Plain Medium Density Fibre Board - imported from China PR, Malaysia, New Zealand, Thailand and Sri Lanka - N/N. 116/2009-Cus ADD dated 08.10.2009 - advertising expenses - Held that: - Regarding non-inclusion of advertising expenses for NIP calculation, we find that the claim of the appellant is incorrect. We have perused the confidential calculation of non-injurious price submitted by 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

A has to consider the material facts relevant to the period. The future possibility of continuing exemption or termination of such exemption cannot be predicted and factored into while arriving at the findings on material injury for DI. The relevant facts available in record have been examined to draw conclusion. - Appeal rejected - decided against appellant. - Anti Dumping Appeal No. 52357 of 2016 with Anti Dumping COD No. 51305 of 2016 - Order Nos. AD/A/53558/2016-CU[DB] - Dated:- 15-9-201 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lain Medium Density Fibre Board (subject goods) originating in or exported from China PR, Malaysia, New Zealand. Thailand and Sri Lanka. The appellant is a domestic manufacturer of subject goods. While they are, in general, supporting the imposition of AD duty they are challenging the quantification of rate of such duty. 2. Before proceeding with the main appeal, we note that there is a delay 287 days in filing this appeal and the appellant is praying for condonation of such delay in filing 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

rt of another investigation relating to main product imported from different countries. Many of the contentions raised by the appellant was accepted by the DA on the said proceedings. Finally, the appellant approached the counsel on 18.07.2016 and the first draft appeal was prepared by the end of July 2018 and finally the appeal was filed on 03.08.2016, this resulting in delay of 287 days. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the DA as well as the Ld. AR for Revenue opposed the application for condonation of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rit as a special case. 6. On the merit of the case, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has only 3 main points to submit. a) The advertising expenses of the DA have not been considered while calculating the NIP which resulted in improper conclusion on NIP and this affected the injury margin and consequently the quantum of AD duty. b) During sunset reviews the data relating to Merbok. Sri Lanka Ltd has not been properly dealt with. The claim of the Government of Sri Lanka regarding the bonafidiness .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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