Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the tribunal was in setting aside the non-injurious price and injury margin on the footing that chlorine had to be treated as a co-product and that the Designated Authority had to follow the same costing method as in the comparable foreign exporter case.
Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Anti-Dumping Rules requires a determination of normal value, export price, margin of dumping and injury on a fair and rational basis. The question whether chlorine was a by-product or a co-product depended on the factual inquiry required by paragraph 12 of Schedule III to the Cost Accounting Records (Caustic Soda) Rules, 1967, particularly the concept of equal economic importance. The tribunal had proceeded largely on the basis of the earlier foreign exporter determination and on the rise in chlorine prices, without independently examining whether the Designated Authority had considered the relevant accounting principles, commercial use, and the statutory test of equal economic importance on the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The tribunal's approach was unsustainable and its order was set aside. The matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.