TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andra, President, Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Appearance: For App.: Ms. V. Pramila, Advocate For Resp. : Shri Amit Singh, Advocate for DA. Shri Govind Dixit, DR for Revenue. Per B. Ravichandran: This bunch of six appeals are directed against final finding dated 28.03.2016 of Designated Authority (DA), Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry under Rule 22 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. The New Shipper Review in terms of the said rules was with reference to Anti-Dumping duty imposed on the import of vitrified/Porcelain tiles from China PR under Notification No.73 of 2003/Cus. ADD dated 1.5.2003 and Notification No.82/2008-CUS ADD dated 27.06.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he five appellants. On being pointed out by the Registry, separate appeals were filed resulting in the delay. Ld. Counsel prayed for condonation of delay atleast in filing of these appeals. Having examined the reasons, we allow the misc. applications and admit the appeals for a decision on merit. 4. On merits of the appeal, ld. Counsel submitted as below:- (a) The DA failed to appreciate the relevant submissions made by the applicants and passed summary orders without any appreciation of full facts. In fact, the AD duty was discontinued with no second sunset review carried out by the DA. As such, the conclusion for levy of AD duty on the applicants is devoid of merit. (b) No proper investigation or verification was done by the DA. As he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014. None of the applicants attended the same and neither they submitted any written note and they did not peruse the matter diligently. They did not cooperate for on the spot verification of the facility. Finally, the DA issued the disclosure statement on 7.5.2015. Subsequently, due to change of the DA another opportunity of oral hearing was granted on 27.08.2015.The appellants appeared and made their submissions. After such hearing, the appellants also agreed for on the spot verification of the data. The same was duly carried out and second disclosure statement issued on 16.03.2016. The DA has fully examined all the documents presented for verification. The reference to second sunset review is not relevant to the present case. The AD duty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder jeopardy. Further, the appellant No.3 is actually exporter of subject goods and realised export proceeds directly from the Indian buyers. There is no supporting evidence to their sale transaction with appellant no.4. 10. After careful consideration of the relationship and commercial transaction, the DA concluded that it will not be appropriate to clear the subject goods made by the applicants without payment of AD duty. 11. We also note that Rule 22 did not provide for any time schedule for completion of New Shipper Review. In the present case, though there is considerable delay in issuing the final findings, the backgrounds and circumstance for such delay has been explained by the DA. First of all, the appellant refused for on the s....