2016 (10) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R The appellants are aggrieved by the Final Findings dated 19/11/2011 of the Designated Authority (the DA), Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Notification No. 3/2012-CUS (ADD) dated 13/1/2012 of Ministry of Finance. 2. The above findings and notification are consequent upon sunset review conducted by the DA of  the AD duty imposed on Nylon Filament Yarn (subject goods) imported from China PR, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Korea RP. Originally, the AD duty was imposed on the basis of Final Findings dated 03/7/2006 vide Notification No. 85/2006-CUS dated 29/8/2006. The DA initiated sunset review investigation on 27/8/2010. The AD duty was extended upto 26/8/2011 and further extended to 28/11/2011. After foll....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. The injury caused to DI has been recognized by the DA. However, exclusions made in proviso to the table is contradictory. 4. Learned Counsel, representing respondent Nos. 6 and 13 (Foreign exporter and Indian importer) submitted that the present appeal is frivolous. The appellant had not contested the form of AD duty at the time of Final Finding or mid-term review. They cannot raise this issue at such a belated stage. India follows the lesser duty rule. The DA recommended duty only to the extend to remove injury. No rule prescribes that the DA should follow a particular method of calculation of AD duty. The exemption based on bench mark price as per proviso is in consonance with past practice of the DA. 5. The learned Counsel for D....