<?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>2018 (3) TMI 655 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356952</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the product scope was not impermissibly expanded, as the initiation and final findings broadly covered castings for wind-operated electricity generators in raw, finished, machined, or sub-assembled form. It rejected the objection to domestic industry status, accepting that M/s Bradken India Pvt. Ltd. could stand in place of the transferred L&amp;T business for the product under consideration. It upheld the finding of dumping and injury supporting anti-dumping duty, but remitted the quantification issue for fresh examination because the record did not clearly resolve the alleged mismatch between rough castings and finished castings. The duty was maintained pending reconsideration of quantum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512763" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 655 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356952</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the product scope was not impermissibly expanded, as the initiation and final findings broadly covered castings for wind-operated electricity generators in raw, finished, machined, or sub-assembled form. It rejected the objection to domestic industry status, accepting that M/s Bradken India Pvt. Ltd. could stand in place of the transferred L&amp;T business for the product under consideration. It upheld the finding of dumping and injury supporting anti-dumping duty, but remitted the quantification issue for fresh examination because the record did not clearly resolve the alleged mismatch between rough castings and finished castings. The duty was maintained pending reconsideration of quantum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356952</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>