<?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>2003 (10) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110042</link>
    <description>On-the-spot verification in an anti-dumping investigation is not mandatory where the exporter has not supplied the clarifications and supporting data sought on identified deficiencies. The Designated Authority may decline verification if outstanding queries remain unanswered and verification would serve no useful purpose. The procedure under paragraph 7 of Article 6.7 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement contemplates that relevant enquiries should first be met before verification can meaningfully proceed. On those facts, the challenge based on failure to conduct verification was rejected because no legal infirmity was shown in the refusal to verify the exporter&#039;s unit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:09:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147058" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 426 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110042</link>
      <description>On-the-spot verification in an anti-dumping investigation is not mandatory where the exporter has not supplied the clarifications and supporting data sought on identified deficiencies. The Designated Authority may decline verification if outstanding queries remain unanswered and verification would serve no useful purpose. The procedure under paragraph 7 of Article 6.7 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement contemplates that relevant enquiries should first be met before verification can meaningfully proceed. On those facts, the challenge based on failure to conduct verification was rejected because no legal infirmity was shown in the refusal to verify the exporter&#039;s unit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110042</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>