2003 (10) TMI 426

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or exported from U.S.A,. Japan, Singapore and European Union and the final finding of the Designated Authority under Notification dated 19th September, 2002 which led to the imposition of anti-dumping duty are under challenge in this appeal at the instance of Dow Chemical Co. Ltd. USA, an exporter. 2. Under Notification dated 31-10-2002 anti-dumping duty at the rate of 1597.49 US $ PMT has been imposed on the imports of the goods mentioned above from the appellant. Even though several contentions are taken in the Memo. of Appeal challenging the notification as well as the final finding, at the time of hearing learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is pressing only one contention, namely, failure on the part of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant. The said appellant had repeatedly furnished every information or clarification sought by the DGAD and indicated its readiness to furnish all other data that may be called for. Only some very sensitive confidential information was not filed and was offered for inspection at the time of verification. It is pertinent to note that Hon ble DA ought to have appreciated that as late as in August, 2002, i.e. after the filing all the relevant responses by the said Appellant, the DGAD vide its letter bearing No. 41/1/2001-DGAD, dated 1st August, 2002 expressed its desire to verify the information furnished on behalf of the said appellant. However, thereafter for reasons not too far to seek DGAD failed to verify the information provided an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I. Reference was also made to incomplete information provided under Appendices VIII and IX. The deficiency in the information already given by the appellant was pointed out in specific terms. To the above letter, reply given by the appellant is that clarification can be given at the time of verification. In the background of the above facts, we find that the Designated Authority was justified in his view that without required data sought by way of clarification, no purpose will be served by verification. It is not the rule that even if all the required data are not made available by the parties, on the spot verification is to be made by the Designated Authority. On the other hand, the procedure for on the spot investigation on the basis of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X