TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 497
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ca and imposed definitive anti-dumping duty on the SBR originating in or exported from the above said three countries. The designated authority conducted a mid-term review in July, 2001 and it was concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty should be continued on SBR. The designated authority suo moto by the powers granted under Proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act notified the initiation of Sunset Review on 30th July, 2003 with regard to continuation of anti-dumping duty on SBR originating in or exported from Japan, Korea RP and United States of America. The designated authority forwarded a copy of the public notice and questionnaire to all known exporters and industry associations, importers and consumers of SBR in India calling for necessary information in accordance with Rule 6(4). Public hearing was held on 7th June, 2004 to enable the interested parties to submit their views orally on which day the authority made available the Public file containing the non-confidential version of the evidence submitted by various interested parties for inspection. After considering all the arguments raised by all and the evidence on record the authority conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has erred in imposing reduced anti-dumping duty, but supports the continuation of the anti-dumping duty on the imports of SBR. It was submitted that the working of the constructed normal value is faulty and the authority has not considered it necessary to look to the data given by the domestic industry. It is the contention that the authority has considered the DGCIS data for arriving at the cost of the raw material, while disregarding the more authentic data as submitted by the appellant. It was submitted that the authority should have considered the data submitted by the domestic industry and arrived at the normal value to impose anti-dumping duty. It is the contention that the authority has erred in deducting the freight element from the cost of the raw material and that the conversion cost has been faultily arrived at. It is also the contention that finance cost like interest etc. were also arrived by taking a faulty basis. The learned Advocate strongly contends that the authority should have disregarded the data available with it and should have worked out the normal value based on the data submitted by the domestic industry, as the exporters were non-co-operative. It was subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imposition of anti-dumping duty on SBR imported from Japan, Korea RP and United States of America. The constituents of the domestic industry comprised of M/s. Apar Industries Limited and M/s. Apcotex Industries Limited. The designated authority on verification of the claim of the petitioners accepted the petition and imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on the imports of SBR. 8.2 It is true that the appeal was filed by Apar Industries Limited, but M/s. Apcotex Industries Limited are shown as Respondent in the appeal filed by Apar Limited. It is settled law that a respondent at any stage during the proceedings can support the appellant. In this case we find that M/s. Apcotex Industries Limited a respondent has filed an application indicating that they are extending full support to the appeal filed by Apar Limited and that the said appeal may be held as maintainable. There is an affidavit also accompanying the application. As such, the preliminary objection raised has no substance. 9.1 The issue involved in this case is whether the anti-dumping duty imposed by the designated authority after the sunset review, is adequate to remove the material injury that may be cau....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... such a finding the designated authority has to follow the procedure set out in Rule 23 of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and collection of Anti- dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (for brevity sake henceforth referred to as ADD Rules). The said Rule 23 reads as under :- "23. Review. - (1) The designated authority shall, from time to time, review the need for the continued imposition of the anti-dumping duty and shall, if it is satisfied on the basis of information received by it that there is no justification for the continued imposition of such duty recommend to the Central Government for its withdrawal. (2) Any review initiated under sub-rule (1) shall be concluded within a period not exceeding twelve months from the date of initiation of such review. (3) The provisions of Rules 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 shall be mutatis mutandis applicable in the case of review." 9.4 We find from the record, that, the designated authority for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was justification for continued imposition of anti-dumping duty on SBR, had called for the relevant information....