TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the methodology adopted for construction of normal value and dumping margin in relation to 6 PPD had attained finality and could be reopened in the second round of litigation. (ii) Whether the remand directions requiring disclosure of background data and post-decisional hearing had been complied with, leaving any surviving challenge to the remand proceedings.
Issue (i): Whether the methodology adopted for construction of normal value and dumping margin in relation to 6 PPD had attained finality and could be reopened in the second round of litigation.
Analysis: The earlier round had already examined the correctness of construction of cost of production for 6 PPD and upheld rejection of the price of 4 ADPA from China, while approving the use of international price data for construction of normal value. That determination had not been carried further and had therefore attained finality. In the second round, the appellants could not reopen that concluded issue under the guise of challenging the remand proceedings.
Conclusion: The issue was against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the remand directions requiring disclosure of background data and post-decisional hearing had been complied with, leaving any surviving challenge to the remand proceedings.
Analysis: The remand was confined to disclosure of information and grant of post-decisional hearing on the limited aspect identified earlier. The record showed compliance with those directions, and the present appeal did not disclose any surviving grievance on that limited remand issue. In those circumstances, there was no merit in the attempt to disturb the original finding through the second round of litigation.
Conclusion: The issue was against the appellants and in favour of the Revenue.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in their entirety because the substantive determination had already attained finality and the limited remand directions had been duly complied with, leaving no ground to interfere.
Ratio Decidendi: A concluded finding that has attained finality cannot be reopened in later proceedings, and where a remand is confined to a limited procedural purpose, compliance with that remand forecloses further challenge on the same concluded issue.
TaxTMI 
