Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Designated Authority Anti-Dumping ... vs M/S. Haldor Topsoe A/S. on 20 July, 2000

Addisseo France S.A.S. vs Designated Authority on 2 June, 2003

9. Contentions have been raised by both sides, as to how normal value is to be ascertained relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Designated Authority v. Haldor Topsoe (supra). A careful reading of that decision leaves no doubt that normal value is irrespective of manufacturer. Normal Value is determined for a country or a territory. It has also been made clear that where normal value information is available in respect of one manufacturer located in a country or territory, that normal value can be applied to other exporters in that country or territory for the purpose of determining whether the exports by those units are dumped exports. It was the specific situation in that case that the Designated Authority treated the European Union sale price of a European manufacturer as constituting normal value for determination of dumping by another non-co-operating exporter from the European Union. Further, resort was being made to such a course by the Designated Authority under "facts available" rule. In the judgment, the Apex Court held that statutory guidelines for determination of Normal Value have been placed in a preferential sequence, for example, "if acceptable material is available in regard to the comparable price in ordinary course of trade in the exporting country or territory itself, then the normal value will have to be determined on that basis, if such material in regard to comparable price is not available, then the Authority has been given a choice under Section 9A(1)(c)(ii)(2) and (b)" [emphasis added]. In the present case, Designated Authority has determined that the sale price of BASF for AD3 in Germany satisfies the requirement of normal value. This 'comparable price' has to be treated as normal price "of similar articles sold under similar circumstances irrespective of the manufacturer". AD3 manufactured by BASF Germany and M/s. Addisseo France SAS are admittedly similar articles. They are also sold under similar circumstances, inasmuch as both are sold in competitive conditions in the European Union. So a "comparable price" for the AD3 of one rightly constitutes the "comparable price" for the other, in other words normal value. It is not in dispute that the export price to India of M/s. Addisseo France SAS for AD3 is well above the normal value determined for BASF i.e. for European Union. In such a situation, it has to be held that there was no dumping of AD3 by M/s. Addisseo France SAS. Consequently, there was no legal justification for imposing anti-dumping duty on AD3 manufactured by Addisseo France SAS and exported to India. In the view we have taken on the issue of normal value, the objections raised by the Counsel for the Designated Authority and the Domestic Industry on the ground of adverse inference etc. have to fail.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Addisseo France S.A.S. vs Ministry Of Finance & The Designated ... on 2 June, 2003

9. Contentions have been raised by both sides, as to how normal value is to be ascertained relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Designated Authority vs. Haldor Topsoe (supra). A careful reading of that decision leaves no doubt that normal value is irrespective of manufacturer. Normal Value is determined for a country or a territory. It has also been made clear that where normal value information is available in respect of one manufacturer located in a country or territory, that normal value can be applied to other exporters in that country or territory or territory for the purpose of determining whether the exports by those units are dumped exports. It was the specific situation in that case that the Designated Authority treated the European Union sale price of a European manufacturer as constituting normal value for determination of dumping by another non-cooperating exporter from the European Union. Further, resort was being made to such a course by the Designated Authority under "facts available" rule. In the Judgment, the Apex Court held that statutory guidelines for determination of Normal Value have been placed in a preferential sequence, for example, "If acceptable material is available in regard to the comparable price in ordinary course of trade in the exporting country or territory itself, then the normal value will have to be determined on that basis, if such material in regard to comparable price is not available, then the Authority has been given a choice under Section 9A(1) e(ii) (2) and (b)" [emphasis added]. In the present case, Designated Authority has determined that the sale price of BASF for AD3 in Germany satisfies the requirement of normal value. This 'comparable price' has to be treated as normal price "of similar articles sold under similar circumstances irrespective of the manufacturer". AD3 manufactured by BASF Germany and M/s Addisseo France SAS are admittedly similar articles. They are also sold under similar circumstances, in as much as both are sold in competitive conditions in the European Union. So a "comparable price" for the AD3 of one rightly constitutes the "comparable price" for the other, in other words normal value. Is is not in dispute that the export price to India of M/s Addisseo France SAS for AD3 is well above the normal value determined for BASF i.e. for European Union. In such a situation, it has to be held that there was no dumping of AD3 by M/s Addisseo France SAS. Consequently, there was no legal justification for imposing anti-dumping duty on AD3 manufactured by Addisseo France SAS and exported to India. In the view we have taken on this issue of normal value, the objections raised by the Counsel for the Designated Authority and the Domestic Industry on the ground of adverse inference etc. have to fail.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nirma Limited vs Union Of India & 6 on 23 February, 2017

Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Designated Authority v. Haldor Topsoe A/S. (supra) and more particularly, paragraph- 19 thereof. It was submitted that whether to extend the time or not is an administrative decision of the designated authority and he may exercise his prudence. It was submitted that the principles of natural justice have been duly complied with and the procedure has been followed and all information and objections have been objectively considered and hence, there is no warrant for interference by this court.
Gujarat High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 4 - H Devani - Full Document

Debraj Dey vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 7 January, 2003

20. According to me, the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 is made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 6 of Section 9A and Sub-section (2) of Section 9B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and in suppression of the earlier Rules of the year, 1985. Therefore, the Rules have to be read in the light of the Act under which those have been made. Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 gives an impression about anti-dumping duty on dumped articles. Both the parties have relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court i.e. Designated Authority v. Haldor Topsee A/S . It was a reference case arose out an order of the CEGAT. The Supreme Court had laid down certain principles of anti-dumping in the said judgment. Section 9A deals with the value. Sub-section (2) of Section 9A says that the Central Government may, pending the determination in accordance with the provisions of this section and the Rules made there-under of the normal value and the margin of dumping in relation to any article, impose on the importation of such article into India an anti-dumping duty on the basis of a provisional estimate of such value and margin if such anti-dumping exceeds the margin. The import of Sub-section (2) is in the nature of provisional assessment keeping the final assessment pending. According to me when imposition under a preliminary finding subject to final determination can be made non-imposition till final determination can also be made. Rule of vice versa is applicable on that score. Imposition includes non-imposition. Therefore, the words "de-minimis pending further investigation" will lead no illegality or material irregularity. Even if the words "pending final investigation" are absent and "de-minimis finding" has been made and notified I do not think the Designated Authority is powerless in taking any measure in respect of the same at the time of final finding on the basis of any informations available to him. There is a provision of statutory review under Rule 23 of the said Rules. As per sub-rule the designated authority shall, from time to time, review the need for the continued imposition of the anti-dumping duty and shall, if it is satisfied on the basis of the information received by it that there is no justification for the continued imposition of such duty recommend to the Central Government for its withdrawal. Any review initiated under Sub-rule (1) shall be concluded within a period not exceeding twelve months from the dale of initiation of such view. The provisions of the Rules, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 shall be mutatis mutandis applicable in the case of review. Therefore two things can be ascertained from such provision. There is no bar in reviewing the imposition of duty time to time. The other is when the preliminary finding i.e. de-minimis subject to final determination is merged with the final finding the same can be reviewed as per its applicability to Rule 17 as and when it is called upon, on the other-hand if the de-minimis finding said to be final as per Rule 14 on the basis of the arguments of the petitioner, the designated authority is empowered to review. Therefore the authority has jurisdiction to determine the duty finally at the preliminary stage or can review. On top of it there is also provision of appeal or review regarding the existence degree and effect of any of dumping in relation to import of any article which shall lie with the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 129 of the Customs Act. The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the parties the opportunity of appeal and opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it thinks fit confirming, modifying or annulling the appeal ordered against. The termination of investigation as available under Rule 14 obviously correlates to the preliminary findings under Rule 12 and levy of provisional duty under Rule 13. The question of final finding arises only under Rule 17. Therefore, the termination of investigation under Rule 14 cannot be output of final finding which is yet to be considered under such rule, Rule 14 prescribes that Designated Authority shall terminate the investigation immediately if it determines that the injury is negligible or less than the prescribed percentage of volume. If it happens at the preliminary stage than the Designated Authority obviously refuses to impose any duty but that does not necessarily mean investigation will be terminated forever before the final finding. If the authority at the time of final finding found certain materials on the basis of the information even then cannot be able to review the situation is nof a justifiable argument. Rule 16 prescribes for information. According to the petitioner himself, Rule 16 is different from confidential information under Rule 7. Good, bad or indifferent, if such disclosure of information becomes the basis of the final finding then obviously the authority in considering the matter will be empowered to review or recall the earlier order passed for termination of investigation at the provisional stage. It is well known under the law that any of the authorities who passes an order can recall and/or review the order so passed by him at any stage. Therefore, using of the words imposition of duty is de-minimis or de-minimis pending further investigation can hardly make any difference. In other words, de-minimis finding within the words "pending further investigation" is superfluous. The word de-minimis is no longer available in view of the final finding. Therefore, the word "de-minimis" or the words "de-minimis pending further investigation" has or have merged with the final finding. Now, the question is how the Designated Authority came to the conclusion in the final finding that volume or import from Bangladesh cannot be de-minimis. That determination obviously derived from the factual materials. If it is so it is very difficult for the writ court to ascertain whether such the materials can draw a final inference contrary to the preliminary finding or not, it appears one of the conditions for such interference is that the exporter was not present. The other condition is assessment of the exporters of Bangladesh who had supplied certain materials were not available. Such materials may or may not be correct but again that is the question of investigation of factual materials by a forums made for the purpose under the statute. Therefore, I do not find any reason for interference of the writ court in those subjects. In other words, the decision of the writ court may not be so efficacious remedy as it has to be made under the statute, Fat obviously there is a valid point for the purpose of taking decision by the forum or forums made for the same.
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - A Lala - Full Document

Dr. Daksha Sankhla, Through Ajay Singh ... vs Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur & ... on 15 February, 2001

Similar view has been reiterated in Union of India & Anr. vs. Mustafa & Najibai Trading Co. & ors. (48), Dr. J. Shashidhara Prasad vs. Governor of Karnalaka & Anr. (49), M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India (50), and Designated Authority (Anti Dumping Directorate), Ministry of Commerce vs, Haldor Topsoe A/S. (51).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 51 - Cited by 42 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Umesh Baijal And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 11 December, 2003

Similar view has been reiterated in Union of India and Anr. v. Mustafa and Najibai Trading Co. and Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 79; Dr. J. Shashidhara Prasad v. Governor of Karnataka and Anr., (1999) 1 SCC 422; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 1999 (3) AWC 2.107 (SC) (NOC) : (1999) 6 SCC 237 and Designated Authority (Anti Dumping Directorate) , Ministry of Commerce v. Haldor Topsoe A/S, (2000) 6 SCC 626.
Allahabad High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 8 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Ram Briksh Prasad vs Member-Secretary Regional ... on 5 May, 2003

Similar view has been reiterated in Union of India and Anr. v. Mustafa and Najibai Trading Co. and Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 79; Dr. J. Shashidhara Prasad v. Governor of Karnataka and Anr., (1999) 1 SCC 422; M. C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 and Designated Authority (Anti-Dumping Directorate), Ministry of Commerce v. Haldor Topsoe A/S, (2000) 6 SCC 626.
Allahabad High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 1 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Sohan Lal Singh Son Of Shri Mishri Lal ... vs Basic Education Board, Through Its ... on 19 January, 2004

Similar view has been reiterated in Union of India and Anr. v. Mustafa and Najibai Trading Co. and Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 79; Dr. J. Shashidhara Prasad v. Governor of Karnataka and Anr.,(1999) 1 SCC 422; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 and Designated Authority (Anti-Dumping, Directorate) Ministry of Commerce v. Haldor Topsoe A/S, (2000) 6 SCC 626.
Allahabad High Court Cites 120 - Cited by 2 - R B Misra - Full Document

Ajay Sharma, Son Of Shri Durg Vijay Singh vs The Collector And Ors. on 12 June, 2004

Similar view has been reiterated in Union of India and Anr. v. Mustafa and Najibai Trading Co. and Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 79, Dr. J. Shashidhara Prasad v. Governor of Karnataka and Anr., (1999) 1 SCC 422; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237 and Designated Authority (Anti-Dumping Directorate) Ministry of Commerce v. Haldor Topsoe A/S, (2000) 6 SCC 626.
Allahabad High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 1 - R B Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next