9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Annexure III of the said Rules nor any other statutory provision mandated specifically the method to be adopted in dealing with captively used inputs while arriving at NIP. The admitted practice by the DA of allowing 22% return on capital deployed has been changed in the present case by the DA. We find no reason recorded for such sudden change inpractice. We also note that there is no reason recorded for adopting the Central Excise provision of Valuation (Rules 8) for captively used inputs. Rule 8 as in the present form mandate that the value of excisable goods captively consumed shall be 110% of cost of production. The said Rule is meant for excise duty levied. Admittedly, there is no provision in AD Rules or in Customs Tariff Act which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Industry and Customs Notification No. 23/2016-Customs (ADD) dated 6.6.2016 of the Ministry of Finance. Through these proceedings, Government has imposed anti-dumping duty on 'Polytetrafluoroethylene or PTEF (subject goods) originating in or exported from Russia. The appellant is a domestic manufacturer of the subject goods and is aggrieved by the inadequate anti-dumping duty imposed by the Government. The only point argued before us by the 'd. Counsel representing the appellant, Domestic Industry, is that non-injurious price (NIP) determined by the DA is low and is inconsistent with the principles laid down in Annexure III of AD Rules and also contrary to consistent position taken by the DA while valuing the inputs captively us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital employed in case of captively used inputs while considering fixing NIP during investigation. 5. Ld.A.R. reiterated the final findings and supported the AD duties imposed vide Customs Notification cited above. 6. We have carefully examined the appeal records including written submissions and considered the arguments of the interested parties. The only point for determination is correctness of method adopted by the DA while arriving at NIP considering a large number of captively produced and consumed inputs while manufacturing the subject goods by the appellant. Admittedly in large number of cases, [a list of such cases were provided by both the appellant and the Id. Counsel by the DA], the DA had been adding 22% return on capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specifically the method to be adopted in dealing with captively used inputs while arriving at NIP. The admitted practice by the DA of allowing 22% return on capital deployed has been changed in the present case by the DA. We find no reason recorded for such sudden change inpractice. We also note that there is no reason recorded for adopting the Central Excise provision of Valuation (Rules 8) for captively used inputs. Rule 8 as in the present form mandate that the value of excisable goods captively consumed shall be 110% of cost of production. The said Rule is meant for excise duty levied. Admittedly, there is no provision in AD Rules or in Customs Tariff Act which mandates the application of such Rule to calculate NIP in antidumping invest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
