<?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>2017 (3) TMI 489 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339986</link>
    <description>New shipper treatment and an individual dumping margin under Rule 22 depend on full disclosure, verifiable facts, and cooperation with the investigating authority. Where the record showed incomplete disclosure, doubtful status as a new entrant, and an unsupported transaction chain, the claim for separate treatment was rejected. Rule 22 does not prescribe a fixed time limit for completing a new shipper review, and delay alone does not invalidate the final findings unless legal prejudice is shown. On the facts recorded, the delay was explained by the review process and no prejudice was demonstrated, so the anti-dumping determination was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 11:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=460956" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 489 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339986</link>
      <description>New shipper treatment and an individual dumping margin under Rule 22 depend on full disclosure, verifiable facts, and cooperation with the investigating authority. Where the record showed incomplete disclosure, doubtful status as a new entrant, and an unsupported transaction chain, the claim for separate treatment was rejected. Rule 22 does not prescribe a fixed time limit for completing a new shipper review, and delay alone does not invalidate the final findings unless legal prejudice is shown. On the facts recorded, the delay was explained by the review process and no prejudice was demonstrated, so the anti-dumping determination was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339986</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>