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 →

Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd. Versus Designated Authority, Directorate, General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties

Imposition of ADD - Polytetrafluoroethylene or PTEF - imported from Russia - correctness of method adopted by the DA while arriving at NIP considering a large number of captively produced and consumed inputs while manufacturing the subject goods by the appellant - the DA has adopted the norms of Rule 8 of Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 and CAS-4 governing transfer value and captive excisable inputs - the DA had been adding 22% return on capital employed in producing captive inputs for arri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ision of Valuation (Rules 8) for captively used inputs. Rule 8 as in the present form mandate that the value of excisable goods captively consumed shall be 110% of cost of production. The said Rule is meant for excise duty levied. Admittedly, there is no provision in AD Rules or in Customs Tariff Act which mandates the application of such Rule to calculate NIP in antidumping investigations. It is apparent that DA has deviated from the consistent practice of valuation adopted by him in numerous o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nce with the legal provision applicable - Appeal disposed off - matter remanded - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Anti-Dumping Appeal No.52500 of 2016 - Order No.53592/2016 - Dated:- 16-9-2016 - Mrs. Reena Khair, with Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Rita Jha, Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocates, Mrs. Aashtha Gupta and Mr. Vikram Agarwal, C.As. for the appellants Shri Amit Singh, Advocate for the Designated Authority Shri Govind Dixit, A.R. for the Revenue Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President, Ms .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t goods) originating in or exported from Russia. The appellant is a domestic manufacturer of the subject goods and is aggrieved by the inadequate anti-dumping duty imposed by the Government. The only point argued before us by the 'd. Counsel representing the appellant, Domestic Industry, is that non-injurious price (NIP) determined by the DA is low and is inconsistent with the principles laid down in Annexure III of AD Rules and also contrary to consistent position taken by the DA while valu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on capital employed for asset utilized for producing such inputs if these are transferred at cost of production. The method followed by the DA in the present case is totally at variance and is in violation of Rule 4 and principles in Annexure Ill of AD Rules. The DA had submitted before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in response to various Writ Petitions that 22% return on capital employed is allowed while considering cost of production of inputs captively used. The method adopted by the DA 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

ing 22% return on capital employed in case of captively used inputs while considering fixing NIP during investigation. 5. Ld.A.R. reiterated the final findings and supported the AD duties imposed vide Customs Notification cited above. 6. We have carefully examined the appeal records including written submissions and considered the arguments of the interested parties. The only point for determination is correctness of method adopted by the DA while arriving at NIP considering a large number of ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g transfer value and captive excisable inputs. He records that reasonable return on capital employed has already been claimed in the form of profit and hence the appellant's claim on return on assets deployed was found to be not tenable. The relevant portion of the final finding is as below: As regards the claim of the company requesting return on assets deployed for the production of captive inputs as Ranjit Nagar, the company was asked to substantiate its claim with reference to Rule 8 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

the company has already been claimed in the form of profit and therefore, the claim of the company on this account is not tenable. 7. We find that neither AD Rule 1995 including Annexure Ill of the said Rules nor any other statutory provision mandated specifically the method to be adopted in dealing with captively used inputs while arriving at NIP. The admitted practice by the DA of allowing 22% return on capital deployed has been changed in the present case by the DA. We find no reason recorded .....

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