9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocate, Mr. Jitendra Singh, Advocate and Mr. Chander Prakash, Advocate on behalf of the Domestic Authorities at length. All the appeals are filed against the Notification No. 165/2003-Cus., dated 12th November, 2002 issued by the Central Government under Sub-Section (1) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Rules 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 [hereafter referred to as rules ] imposing anti-dumping duty on Float Glass of thickness 2mm to 12 mm (both thickness inclusive) of clear as well as tinted variety (other than Green glass) but not including processed gla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellants and we find that the impugned notification is being challenged on the following grounds : (i) that accuracy of import data was not established at all; (ii) that petitioners did not give a proper non-confidential summary of the petition; (iii) that disclosure statement was discriminatory between various categories of interested parties; (iv) that determination of material injury is contrary to the evidence on record; (v) that determination of casual link is contrary to the evidence on record; (vi) that the scope of the product under investigation shall not include varieties of glasses that are not manufactured by the domestic industry; (vii) that the Final anti-dumping duty shall not be l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made after 15-8-2002. Thereafter, Designated Authority issued a Notice for Public hearing to M/s. Navakar Impex Pvt. Ltd. but instead of appearing they wrote a letter dated 14-3-2003 asking not to proceed with the enquiry as the Writ Petition was pending in the Hon ble High Court. 6. The respondents also pleaded that all the issues now being raised by the appellant were not raised before the Designated Authority as M/s. Mahaveer Mirror Industries, Chennai had not participated after preliminary findings and other two appellants did not participate. Even in the case of M/s. Navakar Impex Pvt. Ltd. the notice of public hearing was not responded. 7. After going through the record we find all the contentions now raised by the appellants ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l basis arrived at the findings. Further, we find that appellants had not participated in the proceedings before the Designated Authority. Therefore, now, the appellants cannot say that non-supply of non-confidential summary by the Petitioners will in any way affect the proceedings and findings of the Designated Authority. 10. The appellants contended that the disclosure statement was discriminator between various categories of interested parties. We find that as the appellants had not participated in the proceedings during the investigation, there was no question of any discrimination in respect of the disclosure statement against the appellants. 11. Appellants also raised the issue that domestic industry does not represent a major por ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the investments as the landed value of the dumped imports has considerably depressed the selling price of the domestic industry. (vi) Sales Volume of the domestic industry increased during the POI which is on account of increase in the production capacity of the domestic industry. This increase in sales cannot by itself be attributed to an improvement in the performance. (vii) There has been an increase in the inventory at the end of December, 2001 in comparison to previous year closing on March, 2001. (viii) There has been no impact on the employment level of the domestic industry. (ix) There is no effect on the wages of the industry. (x) The Authority concludes that the most significant cause of injury to the domestic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stead increased and therefore, contraction of demand cannot be attributed as a cause of injury. The Authority also notes that the domestic industry is globally competitive and changes in technology or competition amongst the domestic producers are not the cause of injury. No technological development in the industry or any other such factory which could have resulted in injury to the domestic industry has been noticed. On the basis of the facts available , it is observed that the imports of the subject goods from other countries are below the de-minimis level during the period of investigation. The Authority therefore, concludes that the injury to the domestic industry has been caused by the dumped imports of subject goods from subject c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
