TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DA and has been taken note of in the final order by the Tribunal. The Customs Notification dated 03.07.2013 mentions four digit classification and the description of the product, alongwith an Explanation listing out the exclusion of certain products from the purview of Anti-Dumping duty. Appeal dismissed. - A.D. RoM Application No. 50146 of 2017 in Anti-Dumping Appeal No. 59640 of 2013 - Misc. Order No.50167/2017 - Dated:- 10-4-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President, Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, Advocate for the appellants Shri Amit Singh, Advocate for the Designated Authority Shri Govind Dixit, A.R. for the Revenue Ms. Reena Khair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a fresh decision. The Anti-Dumping duty on the subject goods were allowed to be continued on provisional basis for a period of six months and later extended upto 05.08.2013. The DA re-examined the issue in the remand proceedings and passed Final findings dated 04.04.2013. 3. This Final Findings of 04.04.2013 and the Customs Notification dated 03.07.2013 were again challenged before the Tribunal by the appellant. The Tribunal passed the final order dated 12.09.2016. The present miscellaneous application is for rectification of error apparent on record in the said final order of the Tribunal. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Customs Notification No. 15/2013 was issued in violation of the Tribunal s order dated 06.07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... open to them is to file a statutory appeal against the same. There is no error apparent on record in the said final order. The Tribunal cannot reappraise the evidences or legal arguments, to vary the final order. Such course of action is not permitted within the scope of Section 129B(2) of Customs Act, 1962. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. 2008 (221) ELT 16 (SC) and Commr. of C. Ex. Belapur, Mumbai vs. RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. -2011 (270) ELT 625 (SC). 7. Ld. Counsel for the DA submitted that the present miscellaneous application is without merit. The final order of the Tribunal is not suffering from any error apparen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013 mentions four digit classification and the description of the product, alongwith an Explanation listing out the exclusion of certain products from the purview of Anti-Dumping duty. The observation as recorded in the final order of the Tribunal is as below: 6. We have heard all the interested parties. We have also perused the appeal records including written submissions. We note that in the remand decision by the Tribunal on the appeal filed by the same appellant, the scope of AD levy on the subject goods was examined in detail. It was noted that the Customs Notification mentioned the product by name as well as eight digit classification code. The Tribunal observed that since both are relevant, for any change in the subsequent proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Tribunal remanded the matter to the DA for a fresh consideration and the appellants have been given liberty to raise all the issues before the DA. Upon such direction and complying the same, the present findings were issued, as such we find no merit in the appeal on this issue. 7. Regarding the findings of the DA on injury margin and quantification of AD duty we have carefully perused the impugned findings and there is nothing in the present appeal specific to any issue to persuade us to interfere with the same. Regarding causal link, the DA has examined and recorded his finding from para 123 to 131. It has been clearly recorded that the import of subject goods increased significantly and in direct consequence thereof the dom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
