TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (3) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocate for Designated Authority and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocate, Mr. Jitendra Singh, Advocate and Mr. Chander Prakash, Advocate on behalf of the Domestic Authorities at length. All the appeals are filed against the Notification No. 165/2003-Cus., dated 12th November, 2002 issued by the Central Government under Sub-Section (1) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Rules 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 [hereafter referred to as 'rules'] imposing anti-dumping duty on Float Glass of thickness 2mm to 12 mm (both thickness inclusive) of clear as well as tinted variety (other than Green glass) but not i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounds of the appeal in the appeals filed by the appellants and we find that the impugned notification is being challenged on the following grounds : (i) that accuracy of import data was not established at all; (ii) that petitioners did not give a proper non-confidential summary of the petition; (iii) that disclosure statement was discriminatory between various categories of interested parties; (iv) that determination of material injury is contrary to the evidence on record; (v) that determination of casual link is contrary to the evidence on record; (vi) that the scope of the product under investigation shall not inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reply was to be filed within forty days i.e. by 15th August, 2002. Therefore, the Designated Authority did not send the questionnaire as the request was made after 15-8-2002. Thereafter, Designated Authority issued a Notice for Public hearing to M/s. Navakar Impex Pvt. Ltd. but instead of appearing they wrote a letter dated 14-3-2003 asking not to proceed with the enquiry as the Writ Petition was pending in the Hon'ble High Court. 6. The respondents also pleaded that all the issues now being raised by the appellant were not raised before the Designated Authority as M/s. Mahaveer Mirror Industries, Chennai had not participated after preliminary findings and other two appellants did not participate. Even in the case of M/s. Navakar I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... did not give a non-confidential summary in the petition, we find that the Designated Authority after taking into consideration the information furnished by the exporters on confidential basis and the information supplied by the domestic industry on confidential and non-confidential basis arrived at the findings. Further, we find that appellants had not participated in the proceedings before the Designated Authority. Therefore, now, the appellants cannot say that non-supply of non-confidential summary by the Petitioners will in any way affect the proceedings and findings of the Designated Authority. 10. The appellants contended that the disclosure statement was discriminator between various categories of interested parties. We find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-01. However, the same has been below the non-injurious price (NIP) on account of dumped imports. (iv) The industry has suffered injury due to price undercutting by the dumped imports. (v) The domestic industry has suffered injury due to price suppression. They have not been able to raise their selling price so as to realize a fair return on the investments as the landed value of the dumped imports has considerably depressed the selling price of the domestic industry. (vi) Sales Volume of the domestic industry increased during the POI which is on account of increase in the production capacity of the domestic industry. This increase in sales cannot by itself be attributed to an improv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lower landed value of imports of subject goods from subject countries, the domestic industry has not been able to realize a fair and reasonable price for its products. This has led to very marginal return on investment. The investments in the Float glass Industry are quite heavy and the low return achieved on the investment by the industry reflects the injury suffered by the industry. The demand of the subject goods has not decreased but has instead increased and therefore, contraction of demand cannot be attributed as a cause of injury. The Authority also notes that the domestic industry is globally competitive and changes in technology or competition amongst the domestic producers are not the cause of injury. No technological development ....