2018 (3) TMI 1505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....R Per. B. Ravichandran This appeal is directed against final findings dated 04/07/2017 of the Designated Authority (DA), Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Notification No.1/2017 CUS.(CVD) dated 07/09/2017 issued by the Ministry of Finance imposing Countervailing duty on "certain hot rolled and cold rolled stainless steel flat products" originating in or exported from China PR. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, based on an application filed before the DA on behalf of the Domestic Industry (DI), for imposition of anti-subsidy/Countervailing duty on the import of subject goods from China, the DA initiated investigation in terms of provisions of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Cu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts. 4. Having treated China as non-market economy, the DA cannot proceed with further investigation for imposition of CV duty for subsidy. All aspects of dumping were taken care of when the export price from non-market economy is arrived at. There is no scope for further imposition of duty attributable to "subsidy" with reference to such non-market economy. No CV duty under Section 9 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 can be imposed when Anti-Dumping Duty was imposed on the same products in terms of Section 9A. Referring to the provisions of Section 9B, the learned Counsel submitted that no article shall be subjected to both Countervailing duty and Anti-Dumping Duty to compensate for the same situation of dumping or export subsidization for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecific. The CV duty presently imposed is on percentage basis. The overall duty implication, taken together, did not exceed the injury margin. As such, there is no double taxation of subject goods. Referring to the WTO Appellant body decision relied on by the appellant, the learned Counsel submitted that USA imposed duty on full dumping margin whereas in India, Lesser Duty Rule is followed. The duty is equal to lower of the dumping or injury margin. Similarly, For subsidy also, India followed lower of the subsidy or injury margin. In this principle, India follows the practice of EU which is not similar to USA. It is again emphasized that both the duties put together never exceed the injury margin. As such, there is no illegality in the proce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies upto the stage of steel melting. Expenses involved at rolling stage, whether hot or cold, and are not so significant. The DI produces both HR and CR products in a wide range of shape, size and metallurgical composition as per requirement of the customer. The DA also relied on the scope of "lesser principle" in terms of WTO agreement on subsidies for Countervailing measures. As such, we find no infirmity in considering the scope of subject goods for the present investigation. Regarding the contention of the appellant that both AD duty and CV duty for subsidy cannot be levied on the same subject goods, we note that this aspect has been examined by DA and his findings are as follows: "561. With regard to the contentions raised by the int....