2016 (11) TMI 34

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dran:                 The appeal is against final findings dated 17.8 2015 in sunset of AD duty imposed on imports of Plain Medium Density Fibre Board (subject goods) originating in or exported from China PR, Malaysia, New Zealand. Thailand and Sri Lanka. The appellant is a domestic manufacturer of subject goods. While they are, in general, supporting the imposition of AD duty they are challenging the quantification of rate of such duty. 2. Before proceeding with the main appeal, we note that there is a delay 287 days in filing this appeal and the appellant is praying for condonation of such delay in filing the main appeal and for a decisions on merit. 3. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the case, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has only 3 main points to submit. a) The advertising expenses of the DA have not been considered while calculating the NIP which resulted in improper conclusion on NIP and this affected the injury margin and consequently the quantum of AD duty. b) During sunset reviews the data relating to Merbok. Sri Lanka Ltd has not been properly dealt with. The claim of the Government of Sri Lanka regarding the bonafidiness of accounting followed by Merbok has been accepted without due verification by the DA. c) The area based exemption given to some parts of India is of temporary nature and should not be considered for arriving at the injury margin etc. during investigation. 7. The Ld. Counsel....