TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 491
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rtment of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi and Customs Notification No.23/2017 - CUS (ADD) dated 16/05/2017 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. The said customs notification imposed Anti Dumping duty on aluminium foil originating in, or exported from China PR in terms of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 readwith Rules 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. Appellants in appeal No.AD/51344/2017, AD/51345/2017, AD/51346/2017, AD/51403/2017 and AD/51404/2017 are against the final finding and the customs notification for not excluding the colour coated aluminium foil from the scope of product under consideration for imposition of Anti Dumping Duty. These appellants are engaged in the manufacture of aluminium composite panels for which colour coated aluminium foil is the major raw material. 2. Appellants in appeal No.AD/51489/2017 and ADF/51490/2017 are against the impugned final findings and customs notification for non-exclusion of Ultra Light Gauge (ULG) foil, zero is pinhole foil as well as alumini....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Counsel submitted that though the appellants submitted elaborate details regarding non-availability or non-manufacture of colour coated aluminium foil by D.I., no specific finding was recorded by the DA. In fact, it would appear that, by error, the impugned final findings excluded aluminium composite panel from the scope of product under consideration instead of colour coated aluminium foil. The learned Counsel submitted that the said colour coated aluminium foil was excluded from safeguard duty in 2009 and the same reason is valid even now. The Domestic Industry (DI) has no capacity to manufacture the said product. Accordingly, the learned Counsel prayed for an order to exclude the colour coated aluminium foil from the scope of AD levy in terms of the above-mentioned customs notification. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Domestic Industry supported the submissions made by the above appellants on the excludability of colour coated aluminium foil from the scope of AD levy. It is submitted that the Domestic Industry do not manufacture the said product and, as such, there is no injury for them in case of import of the same. 7. The learned Counsel for the DA ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eference to LME rates is faulty. 13. The learned Counsel for the Domestic Industry contested both these appeals on the ground that the DA has given his clear findings regarding product under consideration. The decision of the Tribunal in Andhra Petrochemicals Vs. Designated Authority - 2006 (201) E.L.T. 481 (Tri. - Del.) is not relevant to the facts of the present case. In the present case, the aluminium foil is of various varieties and the scope of the product has been brought out in the analysis by the DA. 14. The learned Counsel for the DA submitted that the point raised now by the appellants regarding certain types of aluminium foil for the exclusion is mainly concerning the quality issue. The DA has clearly recorded in his findings regarding the availability of aluminium foil with required standards of pinhole count in India. It is submitted that M/s Hindalco Industries have the capacity and did supply the product of required quality. It is also submitted that the LME prices of aluminium is not considered as the varieties involved in the final products are substantial and the reason for not considering the base metal price in terms of LME has been analyzed by the DA. The pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 sq./mtr, it cannot be contended that the ULG produced and supplied by the Chinese producers have pinholes upto 500. The authority notes in this regard that if the government has prescribed certain standards of a product and the same are supplied by the domestic industry, the consumers cannot demand that the product type produced by the domestic industry does not meet the desired standards. 23. It has also been contended that the capacities for ULG available with the domestic industry are far lower than the demand for ULG in the country. 24. The DI also contended that Hindalco, one of the petitioner company, has significant capacity for this kind of product type. For this purpose, there are machines lying in stock and the company has not been able to install them yet. M/s Hindalco has submitted that it has five production line, each of which having 18000 MT capacities, which are capable of making ULG Film out of which the company has installed and made operational only one product line till POI. Further, the company is now in the process of installing one more production line and has still not decided to install the three production lines and inventories. M/s Hindalco has submi....