9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 902X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue By: Shri Amit Singh, Advocate and Sh. Govind Dixit, DR Ms. Reena Khair, Shri Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Rita Jha, Ms. Shreya Dahiya & Ms.Aastha Gupta Advocates & Mr. Vikram Agarwal, C.A. for Interested party. ORDER Per B. Ravichandran: These two appeals are directed against same Final Findings and Customs Notification and hence are considered together for disposal. Appellant No. 1 is a producer/ exporter of SDH Transmission Equipments (subject goods) from China. Appellant No. 2 is an importer of subject goods in India. The appellants are against Final Finding in sunset review of Anti Dumping duty (AD duty) on the subject goods originating in or exported from China PR and Israel. Originally, the investigation for AD duty against the subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After the customs Notification was issued they filed another Writ Petition in the same Court. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition with an observation that it would be open to the petitioner to approach CESTAT for appellate remedy. The appellant also requested to DA the list of interested parties but did not get the same. Delay of 25 days occurred in these circumstances and hence the request for condonation made. Having considered that the delay is only 25 days and has been satisfactorily explained, we condone the said delay and admit the appeals for decision on merite. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellants raised various points against the Final Finding. The main points of his arguments are as below: (i) The DA has consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no categorical evidence or finding to the effect that there is only one exporter from Israel. The DA correctly made cumulative assessment of imports from China and Israel. Israel cannot be excluded unless the whole country's export is without dumping. The case laws on similar issues were relied upon. (c) Regarding change in the disclosed data of HETC, it was submitted that revised disclosure is relevant to the party concerned and not to all the parties in the investigation. (d) The issue relating to reliance placed data from private (OVUM report) it is submitted that the data was provided by DI in support of their petition. The analysis and finding were not based on that report alone. The investigation by DA looks into all aspects in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garding impact of such exclusion of imports in injury analysis. We also note that as regards the volume effect, Annexure-Il to the Rules read with Rule 14 makes it clear that volume effect is to be examined in respect of a country after cumulative assessment of imports and not for an individual exporter. Reference can be made to the decision of the Tribunal in Marino Panel Products Ltd. vs. DA - 2016 (334) ELT 552 (Tri. Del.) (para 12 and 13). It has not been substantiated before us that ECI Israel is the only exporter of subject goods. As the export volume from a particular country is considered together the DA has taken the total volume of exports from Israel. 7. The appellants pleaded that due disclosure has not been made on all data re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant's plea. 8. The appellants also pleaded violation of principles of natural justice with reference to non-disclosure of DGCI data. The appellants relied on Hon'ble Delhi High Court order dated 18.03.2015 in the case of San Disk International Ltd. vs. DA in W.P.(C) No. 744 of 2015. However. the Id. Counsel conceded that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted stay on the said High Court order. However, he insisted that the ratio laid-down by the Hon'ble High Court is binding. Regarding the claim of the appellant that detailed DGCI data has not been provided by the DA We note the consolidated figures as provided by DGCI for the tariff codes for SDH equipment and parts of SDH equipments have been used by the DA. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELT3 (Del.) held that such extension after expiry is not tenable. 11. We have examined this issue. We note that the sunset review in the present case has been initiated on 06.12.2014, i.e. before expiry of five year duty period of initial levy. Considering the objective, purpose and provisions of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, AD Rules, 1995 it was submitted by the Id. Counsel for DA that when the sunset review is initiated well in time, the same cannot be made infructuous by referring to delay in issue of extension notification. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court's order referred to above has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.03.2015 in SLP (C) Nos. 29268 - 29269/2014. We note that this ground is raised only a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
