2016 (11) TMI 225

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [R-8] ORDER Per B. Ravichandran: This appeal is against Final Findings dated 15.1.2013 of the Designated Authority (the DA), Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Notification No.6/2013-Cus. ADD dated 12.4.2013 of Ministry of Finance. The appellant is a producer exporter of plain gypsum board (subject goods) located in UAE. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Saint Gyprac India Limited representing domestic industry (DI) approached the DA for initiation of investigation for imposing Anti Dumping duty (AD duty) on import of subject goods. The DA initiated investigation on 27.07.2011. The period of Investigation (POI) was 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2010. After following the procedure set out in te....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terated that the DA can recommend AD duty even if dumping is only one of the reason for injury to the DI. 6. Ld. AR for Revenue supported the impugned customs notification. He drew our attention to Rule 11(2) of AD Rules read with Annexure-II of the said Rules. He reiterated that all the relevant factors have been considered by the DA before recommending AD duty. 7. We have heard the Id. Counsels for the appellant, DA and the Revenue. We have also perused the appeal records including written submissions. The impugned findings and the subsequent Customs Notification are under challenge in the present appeal. On the first issue regarding improper consideration of product for investigation we find that the DA has examined this issue and disc....