9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal findings that the profitability of D.I. improved in 2007-2008 as a result of A.D. duty imposed on imports from other dumped sources. The return on investment should be adopted based on consistent practice followed by the D.A. and the claim made by D.I. There is no legal basis to adopt the resale price of related party in India for calculation price under cutting and injury margin. The landed price is to be as per Section 9(A)(1b). The data for different period cannot be compared. The significant adverse impact of dumped imports may be established in terms of any one or more parameters listed as per the A.D. Rules. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Anti Dumping Appeal No. 2931-2932 of 2012 with Anti Dumping St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as set out under Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, the Designated Authority recommended imposition of AD duty on the subject goods originating in or exported from European Union excluding Sweden. Customs Notification dated 20.06.2012 was accordingly issued imposing AD duty. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contested the findings of the Designated Authority on various grounds. His submissions may be summarized as below: (a) Price under selling has been exaggerated in view of assuming 22% return on capital employed, for domestic industry. The rate of return has distorted the injury margin. The imports of subject goods i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asonable for calculation of NIP. None of the parties objected to this claim during the investigation by the D.A. This is as per the consistent practice of adopting reasonable return. The D.A. has correctly examined the inter-se competition with other domestic producer while analysing the injury. The Indian resale price of imported goods cannot be considered for injury margin. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the D.A. supported the findings of the D.A. He submitted that none of the grounds now raised by the appellants have any merit so as to interfere with the said findings. The procedure prescribed under A.D. Rules have been strictly followed before arriving at the conclusion. 6. The Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue supported the imposition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015 in the case of Merino Penal Products Ltd. held that the return on investment is adopted based on consistent practice followed by the D.A. and the claim made by D.I. The said claim was not controverted with evidence at any stage nor was there any ground of reason to suspect any manipulation on the part of D.I. in that regard. We find there is no specific point made by the appellant with supporting evidence to hold that the practice followed by the D.A. in arriving at return on investment is patently wrong. 10. Regarding calculation of price under cutting and injury margin based on resale price of subject goods in India, we find that there is no legal basis for such assertion. When pointedly asked, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
