9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran These two appeals are by domestic producers of "colour coated/pre-painted flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel" in India (DI). The appellants are against final finding dated 30/08/2017 of the Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties (DA), Ministry of Commerce and Notification No. 49/2017-CUS (ADD) dated 17/10/2017 of Ministry of Finance imposing definitive Anti Dumping duty on "colour coated/pre-painted flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel" (subject goods) originating in or exported from China PR and EU. The appellants while supporting the imposition of AD duty contested the quantification of such duty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f fixed assets were made without authority of law. Exclusion of interest cost before commercial production is not proper. Similarly, trial run expenditure and factors due to foreign exchange fluctuation have not been considered by the DA. The learned Counsel submitted that accounting standards as prescribed have not been followed for arriving at NIP. M/s Essar had two plants - one gas based and another coal based. While the parameters for coal based plant were fully taken, for gas based plant, the DA incorrectly considered only reduced capital assets. 4. The second grievance of the appellant is with reference to quantification and method of determining the AD duty imposable on the subject goods. The learned Counsel submitted that AD duty s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel for DA submitted that the quantum and method to impose AD duty is based on various factors and as long as the injury of the DI is addressed, the fixation of AD duty linked to a reference landed value cannot be contested. Such recommendations, including for steel products produced by the same appellant, have been made in the past also. 8. The learned AR for Revenue supported the findings of the DA and the customs notification imposing AD duty. 9. We have heard all the sides and perused the appeal record. The appellants are DI engaged in the production of subject goods. Regarding the valuation of raw material used by JSCPL, we note that the very same basis of adopting transfer price, being price for the raw material, has been followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... years only. The DA had noted that the said issue of abnormal expense appears to be for the earlier period also. We have also taken note of the submission made by the learned Counsel for DA with reference to trial run expenditure, interest charges, foreign exchange fluctuation etc. were in the nature of revenue expenses and were not allowed as part of capital employed. As such, we find no merit in the submissions made by the appellant. 11. The appellants were also aggrieved by fixation of AD duty linking it to a reference landed value of the subject goods at the time of import. We find no infirmity in such course of action. There is no mandate either in terms of WTO agreement or AD rules for the DA to recommend AD duty in a particular form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
