TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Anti-Dumping Duty on PVC Paste Resin, Rejects Appeal</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the appeal challenging the extension of anti-dumping duty on PVC paste resin, citing clear identification of subject goods in the ... Imposition of ADD - PVC paste resin, CTH 3904 - classification of goods after sunset review - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of M/s Leather Cloth & Plastics Manufacturers Association Versus Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties/Ministry of Finance [2016 (10) TMI 444 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that when the notification mentions and identifies the subject goods by name and specific tariff classification, any change in such parameters ought to be done within the ambit of law - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:1. Challenge against Final Finding and Notification extending anti-dumping duty on PVC paste resin.2. Delay in filing the appeal.3. Consistency of Final Finding and Customs Notification with previous Tribunal order.4. Examination of injury margin, quantification of AD duty, and causal link by the Designated Authority.Analysis:1. The appeal was against the Final Finding and Notification extending the anti-dumping duty on PVC paste resin. The appellant, an association of Leather Cloth and Plastic Manufacturing Units, challenged the extension of duty by the Designated Authority (DA) and the subsequent Customs Notification. The history of the case involved original investigations, recommendations, and previous Tribunal orders setting aside customs notifications for imposing duty on products not covered by the original notification.2. The appellant filed a miscellaneous application for condonation of a 139-day delay in filing the appeal. After considering the reasons for the delay, the Tribunal allowed the application, condoned the delay, and accepted the appeal for final disposal.3. The Tribunal referred to a previous order dated 12.09.2016, where the issue of AD levy on subject goods was extensively examined. The Tribunal in the previous order emphasized the importance of identifying subject goods by name and specific tariff classification. It was concluded that any change in these parameters must adhere to the rules and procedures. The present appeal raised similar contentions, but the Tribunal found that the subject goods were identified clearly in the Final Finding and Customs Notification, eliminating the ambiguity regarding classification. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on this issue.4. The Designated Authority's findings on injury margin, quantification of AD duty, and causal link were also scrutinized. The DA's analysis showed a significant increase in the import of subject goods leading to a loss in market share for the domestic industry. The DA concluded that the dumped imports caused a deterioration in profits and return on capital for the domestic industry. After examining these aspects, the DA recommended the levy of AD duty, which was notified through the Customs Notification. The Tribunal found no merit in the present appeal based on this analysis and discussion, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the associated miscellaneous applications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
