TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 824
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r (M/s Domestic Industries). Shri Govind Dixit, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran These three appeals are directed against Notification No. 30/2016 ADD dated 11/07/16 issued by the Ministry of Finance, imposing Anti Dumping duty on import of Tetrafluoroethane (subject goods) from China PR based on final finding of the Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce vide Notification dated 30/05/16. The first appellant (Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals [Taichang] Co. Ltd., China is producer exporter of the subject goods to India. The first appellant is a subsidiary company of second appellant Sinochem Modern Environmental Protecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ports of subject goods from appellant in China. The injury caused to domestic industry is due to unreasonable increasing installed capacities which added to the fixed cost as well as semi-variable cost of the finished goods ; (d) The DA fixed 22% as return on capital for determining non-injurious price. There is no reason for such a high return determined by the DA. 3. In their appeal the domestic importer contended that the import data relied upon by the DA was incorrect as no segregation was made between import of prohibited gas R 22 and the subject goods while examining the data. It was also submitted that the other factors which are causing injury to the domestic industry have not been examined by the DA. 4. The learned C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The learned AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue supported the findings of the DA and consequent customs notification imposing the anti dumping duty on the subject goods. 8. We have heard all the sides and perused appeal records including written submissions. As noted already the impugned notification was for continued imposition of anti dumping duty on the subject goods for further period of 5 years based on the recommendation of the DA who conducted a Sunset Review investigation on such duties. We have carefully perused the final findings dated 30/05/16 of the DA. Regarding the first appellant s request for individual dumping margin we note that the said aspect has been examined by the DA. It was recorded that Sinochem Ningbo belong....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mined the methodology for injury determination and causal link between import and such injury as done by the DA. We note that the demand and consumption of the subject goods increased during the injury period including the POI. The imports remained significant despite of imposition of anti dumping duty. We have also noted that in the Sunset Review the DA examined parameter of import of the subject goods as per the terms similar to the original investigation. 11. The appellants also contended that there are various other factors which caused injury to the domestic industry. Special mention was made regarding excess idle capacity. The DA has taken note of these facts and concluded the increased demand motivated the domestic industry to exp....