<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (4) TMI 389 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77649</link>
    <description>In a sunset review, continuation of anti-dumping duty depends on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury if the duty is withdrawn, not on a fresh original-style recalculation of dumping margin; the continued duty is not mechanically capped by the margin found in review. The authority may vary the duty while continuing it under Section 9A(5) if reasons are recorded and the variation addresses current or likely injury. Acrylic tow and acrylic top were treated as forms of acrylic fibre within the notification, and the two producers&#039; insignificant advance-licence imports did not justify exclusion from the domestic industry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115813" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 389 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77649</link>
      <description>In a sunset review, continuation of anti-dumping duty depends on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury if the duty is withdrawn, not on a fresh original-style recalculation of dumping margin; the continued duty is not mechanically capped by the margin found in review. The authority may vary the duty while continuing it under Section 9A(5) if reasons are recorded and the variation addresses current or likely injury. Acrylic tow and acrylic top were treated as forms of acrylic fibre within the notification, and the two producers&#039; insignificant advance-licence imports did not justify exclusion from the domestic industry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>