<?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>2004 (6) TMI 360 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111871</link>
    <description>Anti-dumping duty was held unsustainable because material injury, threat of injury, and causal link were not established on objective and reliable data. The record showed high capacity utilisation, stable or improved selling prices, no significant price suppression or undercutting, and returns that did not support a finding that the domestic industry could not recover costs or earn a reasonable return. The claimed injury was based on assumptions about fixed capital return and annualised figures from a short period, which the material did not support. Surplus capacity in exporting countries, without a clearly foreseen and imminent threat, was insufficient. The anti-dumping notification was set aside for the importers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 16:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=148887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 360 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111871</link>
      <description>Anti-dumping duty was held unsustainable because material injury, threat of injury, and causal link were not established on objective and reliable data. The record showed high capacity utilisation, stable or improved selling prices, no significant price suppression or undercutting, and returns that did not support a finding that the domestic industry could not recover costs or earn a reasonable return. The claimed injury was based on assumptions about fixed capital return and annualised figures from a short period, which the material did not support. Surplus capacity in exporting countries, without a clearly foreseen and imminent threat, was insufficient. The anti-dumping notification was set aside for the importers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111871</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>