<?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>2006 (8) TMI 38 - Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=851</link>
    <description>An anti-dumping exemption notification was held to be exporter-specific, because the excluded Romanian entity was named as the exporter in the relevant column and not merely as the manufacturer. The exemption therefore applied only when the export itself was made by that named exporter. Goods shipped from Dubai by a different exporter did not qualify, even though they were manufactured by the excluded Romanian producer, so the anti-dumping duty levy was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 38 - Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=851</link>
      <description>An anti-dumping exemption notification was held to be exporter-specific, because the excluded Romanian entity was named as the exporter in the relevant column and not merely as the manufacturer. The exemption therefore applied only when the export itself was made by that named exporter. Goods shipped from Dubai by a different exporter did not qualify, even though they were manufactured by the excluded Romanian producer, so the anti-dumping duty levy was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>