2017 (2) TMI 1159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appellant alongwith M/s Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. filed request with the DA for initiation of investigation with reference to import of subject goods from subject countries. M/s Rushil Decor Ltd. supported the request. After conducting the investigation the DA issued final findings dated 05/05/2015 recommending imposition of AD duty in the range of US $ 14.71 to 64.35 CBM. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the DA failed to examine the vital issues raised by the appellant on merits. VRG Donghwha MDF Joint Stock Company, Vietnam had increased the export operations and profitability of the company increased enormously over the period. This was possible only with Government support. The ex-factory export price shall be U.S. $ 200 per CBM. The cost of production for the exporting company has not been properly arrived at. The analysis of balance sheet, share holding pattern, borrowing etc. indicates that the cost of production/export price have not been duly verified by the DA resulting in improper fixation of dumping margin. 3. The learned Counsel further submitted that the DA failed to provide non-confidential version of the verification report t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submitted that in terms of the said section any party aggrieved by the imposition or determination of AD duty can prefer an appeal to the appellate Tribunal. The anti dumping duty in the present case was imposed vide notification dated 14/07/2016. The cross appeal filed on 24/11/2016 is liable to be dismissed as legaily non-maintainable. The cross appeal provisions in terms of Section 129 A (4) of Customs Act, 1962 has no application for the proceedings before subject anti dumping Bench of the Tribunal. There is no provision of filing Cross appeal in terms of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Reliance was placed on certain decided case laws in this regard. 7. As a rejoinder, the learned Counsel for M/s VRG Donghwha MDF JSC further submitted that the provisions of Section 9A (8) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides for application of provisions of Customs Act, 1962 with reference to appeals. As such, he prayed that the cross appeal has to be admitted and should be treated as an appeal against the findings of the DA, for a decision on merit by the Tribunal. 8. The learned Counsel for the DA reiterated the final findings of the DA. He submitted that full disclosure of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e at the constructed raw material value of Vietnam exporter. The parameters which go into determining the cost of raw material, more so when the material is a natural product like wood and timber, it is necessary that the location of the unit, the transport cost etc. are to be factored in. We note that the DA had conducted detailed verification of the data with reference to various exporters of subject goods. In fact he had recorded findings separately for each one of the parties who had submitted data to arrive at the weighted average of normal value, weighted average of export price and dumping margin. With specific reference to VRG Donghwha MDF JSC the DA has recorded detailed findings from para 60 to 66. We note that the producer exporter had filed questionnaire response, additional information for further clarification and there was an on-the-spot verification by the officers of DA. The data was verified and there upon normal value was arrived at. We note that the average cost of production of subject goods was determined based on verified cost data and additional information called for from the purchaser. The domestic sales or profitable sales is subject country for the purpo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ensitive data relating to costing, apparently cannot be made available for disclosure. The disclosure of non-confidential information cannot indirectly aid interested parties getting the confidential data. In other words, if the DA has formed a opinion regarding correctness of the claim made by the party about confidentiality then he is within his rights to withhold such information and make available only the general non-confidential summary relevant for investigation. We find no infirmity in the proceedings by the DA in arriving at the quantum of definitive anti dumping duty on subject goods. 12. On the admissibility of cross appeal in anti dumping duty matters we note that the Tribunal had occasion to consider similar issue in Apar Industries vs. Designated Authority reported in 2003 (153) 213 (Tri. - Del.). It was held that for the purpose of escaping from the provisions of limitation, the appeal filed in the name of cross appeal cannot be considered. In this connection, we have examined the detailed submissions made by the respondent No. 6 for admitting their cross appeal and for a decision on merit. It is the submission of the learned Counsel, defending the maintainability o....