TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 70
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cal) Ms. V. Pramila Vishwanathan, Advocate - for the appellant. Shri Amit Singh, Advocate for DA, Authorized Representative (DR) - for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is before us challenging final finding dated 24/07/2013 of the Designated Authority (DA), Directorate General of Anti Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The appellants filed new shipper review under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so Sunset review investigation. The DA initiated the investigation based on such application. After completion of the investigation, the DA concluded that no individual dumping margin is justified in respect of the exports of vitrified tiles made to India by the appellant. The Anti Dumping duty @ Rs. 155/- per sq. mtr. as applicable vide Notification 82/2008-CUS dated 27/06/2008 shall also be appl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndings of the DA is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned Counsel for the DA strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that all the aspects have been covered by the DA in his final findings dated 22/07/2013. 4. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records including written submissions. We note that the purchaser as well as exporter who originally claimed new shipper ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noted that M/s Foshan Hongligao Trade Co. Ltd. is holding export licence and is the actual exporter in the present case. They have not filed any response to the DA. It is clear that at the time of filing request for new shipper review, the appellants were aware that M/s Foshan Hongligao Trade Co. Ltd. is actual holder of export licence in China and details regarding VAT paid on inputs etc. are req....