9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e president, to decide the case of anti dumping duty. Whereas appeal u/s 129A of Customs Act is heard by a single or a division Bench. The court fee applicable for the appeal under Customs Act as well as under Customs Tariff Act for anti dumping duty are different. The appeal against determination of anti dumping duty is clearly provided u/s 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. An appeal u/s 9C of Customs Tariff Act is required to be filed within the time prescribed to challenge the determination or imposition of anti dumping duty. There is no provision of filing cross objection to be treated as a separate appeal under the said section. The provisions of Section 9A (8) only applies "as far as may apply". When there is a specific provision under Customs Tariff Act for filing appeal against anti dumping duty, the provisions of said section should only apply. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - Anti Dumping Appeal No. 52803 of 2016 - AD/A/50460/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 24-1-2017 - Shri Dr. Satish Chandra, President, Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Ms. Reena Khair and Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocates - for the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entiality in respect of reasons for arriving at the finding. The DA should have made available the reasons for his finding to arrive at a particular dumping margin and recommending a specific AD duty. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4, who were also party in the investigation by the DA, as producer/exporter of subject goods from Vietnam, submitted that the DA found that these two respondents were not dumping the subject goods in the Indian market and as such no AD duty was recommended against them. The learned Counsel submitted that the DA has elaborately examined all the relevant data and arrived at the correct decision. The claim of the appellant that the respondents claimed excessive confidentiality and the dumping margin determined by the DA was incorrect and understated is not factually correct. The learned Counsel drew our attention to paras 51 to 59 of the final findings to reiterate his submissions. It was further submitted that verification report is an internal communication to the concerned exporters the non-confidential version of the responses filed by the exporter has been provided to the appellant. All the data submitted by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He referred to specific reasons recorded in the final findings of the DA. 9. The learned AR supported the customs notification imposing AD duty on the subject goods. Regarding the maintainability of cross appeal, it was submitted that the claim of the respondent No. 6 regarding maintainability of cross appeal is without valid legal basis. There cannot be two parallel provisions - one under Customs Act and another under Customs Tariff Act for appeal proceedings with reference to anti dumping duty. The appeal in the case of anti dumping duty has been clearly provided under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. The reliance placed by the Counsel for the respondent No. 6 on the provisions of Section 9A (8) is not appropriate as the said section only provides for application of various provisions of Customs Act, Rules etc. for the anti dumping duty as far as may be apply to the duty chargeable under Section 9A . 10. We have heard the learned Counsels for all the interested parties as above and perused the appeal records including written submissions. First, we take up the issues raised by the appellant/ Domestic Industry against improper fixation of rate for anti dumping duty by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of the document verification have not been made available to them. We note that the DA cannot make available sensitive cost data of the exporting company. The same is protected by the provision of Rule 7 of AD Rules. We have noted that the non-confidential version of general summary and verification details have been made available to the interested parties. We find that there is no excessive confidentiality or non-disclosure of any fact prejudicing the appellant. 11. We have also perused the decided case laws relied upon by the appellant. In Meghmany Organics Ltd. and others SLP No. 1679 of 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held on 07/10/2016 that the power of the DA to treat an information as confidential must be within the confines of Rule 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed the DA can treat the information as confidential only when a claim is made to that effect by the provider. If it is not possible to accept the confidentiality, Rule 7 gives no option, but to ignore such information in case the said information is not confidential but still claimed to be so by the concerned person. We find no application for such ratio to the facts of the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are as below. (8) The provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and the rules and regulations made thereunder, including those relating to the date for determination of the rate of duty, assessment, non-levy, short levy, refunds, interest, appeals, offences and penalties, shall, as far as may be, apply to the duty chargeable under this Section as they apply in relation to duties leviable under that Act. 13. The above said provision seeks to apply the machinery provisions of Customs Act, 1962 relating to determination of rate of duty, assessment, collection thereof and any appeal, interest refund in relation to these assessments and collection of anti dumping duty as is applicable to the duties of customs. There is no reference to investigation or determination of levy of anti dumping duty. We note that if the submissions of the learned Counsel in support of cross appeal is considered, then the party aggrieved by determination of anti dumping duty shall have a right to file an appeal, both under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as well as under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. Such proposition is legally untenable. Section 9C (5) of Customs Tari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
