9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER The appeal is against Final Finding dated 02.04.2014 of the Designated Authority (DA), Directorate of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Notification No. 24/2014-Cus. (ADD) dated 21.05.2014 of Ministry of Finance. Through these proceedings Anti Dumping Duty (AD duty) was imposed Methylene Chloride (subject goods) originating in or exported from E.U., USA and Korea RP. 2. Before proceeding with the merits of the appeal, we note that there is a delay in filing of this appeal. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that a delay of seven days happened as authorised person for preparing and filing the appeal was on a business tour and hence the unavoidable delay happened. We find the delay is c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is apparent that CTC can never be considered as a joint or coproduct for cost analysis. Further, CTC is an ozone depleting substance which is controlled for use in agrochemical industry. The said product is governed by Montreal Protocol. It was further submitted that "production value ratio" method of cost analysis has been challenged by the appellant. It is clear that the said analyses is based on sales realisation of various products emerging during the manufacture of subject goods. She further submitted that the costing of subject goods and subsequent determination of non injurious price were all done as per the accepted standards of accounting. Regarding imposition of duty in terms of US$ it was submitted that the same is an accepted pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g purposes. For this, one has to consider the economic importance of various co-produced products. In the present case, it is clear that CTC contributes only 5% of sales realisation when compare to the other two main products which contribute 50% and 45% in sales realisation. When asked specifically as to how a product of such least economic importance can be considered as a joint product, the Id. Counsel for the appellant only reiterated that since this product is co-produced and accordingly should be considered as a co-product. We find such argument as misleading and wrong. Ld. Counsel could not point out any legal provision or specific cost accounting standards applying to the relevant time to treat the CTC as a joint product. We note th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
