9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for DA and Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent. Shri Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate, Shivar Patodia, Ms. Juhi Chawla and Mayank Singhal, Advocates - for (respondent 3 in Technova) the appellant. Shri Suhail Nathani and Somnath Shukla, Advocates ORDER These are four appeals against final findings dated 03/10/2012 by the Designated Authority (the DA), Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Notification No. 51/2012 - CUS (ADD) dated 03/12/2012 of Ministry of Finance. 2. Before proceeding further with the merits of the appeal, it is necessary to examine and decide three applications filed by three appellants [Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd., Fujifilm Printing Plat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reference to benchmark form for various types of subject goods. The impugned customs notification dated 03/12/2012 was issued imposing AD duties as recommended by the DA. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for three appellants - one Indian importer an two Chinese producers - all part of same group company - Fujifilm - submitted that the DA's Findings are based on erroneous interpretation of facts and legal provisions. Her arguments can be summarized as below . (a) the Chinese producers are operating under market economy conditions and the provision of para 1 to 6 of Annexure I of the AD Rules are applicable to them. (b) there would be no injury from China, if the effect of safeguard duty imposed on import of aluminium flat roll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AD duties levied by the impugned customs notification. He submitted that there is a causal link as per Rule 11 (2) and Annexure Il of AD Rules. There is increase in import and dumping. 8. We have heard the parties as above. Considered the appeal papers and written submissions. 9. The legality and correctness of levy of AD duties on subject goods are under challenge. The first point of agitation is that the Chinese producers should have been considered as operating in market economy conditions. We note that the DA has recorded that in the past three years China PR has been treated as non-market economy in the anti-dumping investigations by other WTO Members. Hence, a rebuttable presumption of non-market economy status has been made in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been dealt with extensively by DA in the Final Findings. The methodology adopted for arriving at the NIP is well within the guidelines framed under AD Rules. The rate of return, costing parameters, differential treatment to violet and thermal plates, exclusion of selling/distribution cost, exchange note fluctuation etc. have all been taken into consideration by the DA. We find no material point in the present appeal to interfere with the reasoning adopted by the DA while arriving at the NIP. 12. The final point of contest by the appellants is relating to wrong determination of injury to DI. The imports from subject countries have shown significant increase in absolute terms during injury period including POI. The demand for subject goods i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
