9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - [2012 (10) TMI 832 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that even if the only producer of subject goods in the country produced only 4%, by a combined reading of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) proviso the said producer is considered as a domestic industry and is entitled to maintain the application for investigation. Calculation of injury margin - Held that: - the Central Government by Notification dated 04.08.2008 had fixed the maximum sales price of subject goods at ₹ 526/ kg. which was applicable during the POI - 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2010. The price was fixed at ₹ 514/ kg. vide Notification dated 01.07.2011 and again at ₹ 588/ kg. Notification dated 16.11.2012. The DA has correctly applied the rate of ₹ 526/ kg. applicable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing extension of anti-dumping duty in subset review and Notification No. 40/2012-Cus (ADD) dated 30.08.2012 of Ministry of Finance. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Aarti Drugs Ltd. and M/s Unichem Laboratories Limited filed application with the DA, who initiated a sunset review Investigation on 30.05.2011 under Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The definitive anti-dumping duty was originally recommended on 14.07.2000 on import of subject goods originating in or exported from China P.R. After First sunset review the AD duty was continued vide Notification dated 05.04.2006 (Customs notification No. 61/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject goods and satisfy the requirement of Rule 2(b) of the AD Rules. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in Nirma Limited vs. Saint Gobain Glass India Ltd. - 2012 (281) ELT 321 (Mad. ) held that even if the only producer of subject goods in the country produced only 4%, by a combined reading of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) proviso the said producer is considered as a domestic industry and is entitled to maintain the application for investigation. As such we find no merit in the appellant's contention on this point. On the second point regarding incorrect calculation of injury margin by taking wrong DPCO price, we note that the Central Government by Notification dated 04.08.2008 had fixed the maximum sales price of subject goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
