9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d submission on such legal provision could be made by the Id. Counsel for the appellants. The Designated Authority has followed the procedure as mandated by the Rules in respect of all the proceedings - absence of legal provisions for supporting the plea of the appellants - appeals dismissed - decided against appellant. - Anti-Dumping Appeal Nos.15, 16, 17 & 18 of 2012 - Final Order NO 53208-53211/2016 - Dated:- 24-8-2016 - Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President, Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri Darpan Bhuyan, Shri Dhruv Gupta and Shri T.D. Satish, Advocates Rep. by Shri Amit Singh, Advocate for Designated Authority. Rep. by Shri Govind Dixit, AR for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods by them. Accordingly, in terms of Rule 23 of the Rules, the DA initiated mid-term review. After due inquiry, he recommended withdrawal of anti-dumping duty vide final finding dated 10.02.2012. The anti-dumping duty was withdrawn vide notification no. 13/2012-Cus dated 22.02.2012, which rescinded the earlier notification no.58/201 1-Cus dated 8.7.2011. 4. The common plea of all the appellants in the present appeals is that no anti-dumping duty can be levied from the date of closure of plant of domestic manufacturer i.e. 1.3.2011 till the actual revocation of duty viz. 22.02.2012. It was argued that the anti-dumping duty is to eliminate injustice caused to the domestic industry by unfair trade practices of dumping. In the present ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawn. The only point of dispute is that the said withdrawal should have been from the date of closure of manufacture by the domestic industry. We have perused the impugned order dated 10.02.2012. It is clear that both during initial proceedings of imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty and of definitive anti-dumping duty, all the interested parties have taken part in the proceedings. The designated Authority followed the procedure and there is no contest on these admitted facts. We find that the following observation by the Designated Authority correctly brings out the factual and legal position relevant to the present appeals. The Authority had notified the Final Findings in the original investigation on 3.5.2011 recommending im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... low relief back dated and the importers should be allowed refund of anti-dumping duty on retrospective basis, the Authority notes that the subject MTR anti-dumping investigation has been conducted under Rule 23 of the Anti-dumping Rules. There is no provision under the said Rules for backdated relief in such circumstances. 9. We, specifically, asked the Id. Counsel for the appellants as to provision under which the relief is sought by them, with retrospective effect. No pointed submission on such legal provision could be made by the Id. Counsel for the appellants. He repeated that for the period when there is no production by the domestic industry, anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed. We find that the Designated Authority has followed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
