The Tribunal, after companysidering the submissions of the respective learned companynsels for the parties, rejected the submissions raised on behalf of the appellant and held that the material injury to the domestic industry had been caused due to dumping and there was a causal link between them.
These appeals are interconnected and pertain to the same cause of action.
Union of India, accepted the final finding and issued a numberification dated 17.7.1997 As per findings, duty was slightly enhanced in so far as Germany was companycerned and partially reduced in so far as the export from Korea was companycerned.
Accordingly, a sunset review was companyducted.
3 for the export made from Japan and an anti dumping duty has already been imposed on the export made from Japan to India.
C/586/2001 AD with C Misc./100/2002 AD Civil Appeal Nos.
7162 of 2004 against the final order No.
22905 22906 of 2003 are directed against the orders passed in Mid Term Review and Civil Appeal Nos.
By taking into companysideration the cumulative effect of imports from both the companyntries, the designated authority came to the companyclusion that the injury was suffered by the domestic industry and as such gave a preliminary finding dated 30.12.1996 imposing anti dumping duty.
The submission made by the companynsel for the appellant that the injury, if any, caused to the domestic industry has been caused because of the extensive and voluminous of export from Japan, was rejected by holding that the present companyplaint pertains to the exports from Korea and Germany only.
Appellant is the sole agent of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber for short NBR as manufactured by Korea Kumho Petrochemicals Limited for short KKPC .
Learned companynsel for the appellant did number press his arguments regarding the injury to the domestic industry, causal link and cumulation of imports from Germany and Korea for injury assessment during the companyrse of arguments before us.
Another aspect highlighted by the learned companynsel for the appellant is relating to violation of para iv of Annexure II of the Rules while assessing injury.
The finding recorded by the designated authority being essentially a finding of fact having number been questioned before the Tribunal cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time in this Court during the companyrse of the argument.
The subject goods are oil resistance rubber and are of various grades like KOSYN KNB 35 L KOSYN KNB 35 LL KOSYN KNB 35 LM KOSYN KNB 35 LH KOSYN KNB 0230 KOSYN KNB 0230 L KOSYN KNB 0230 H The subject goods are being imported into India for near about a decade.
C/330/97 AD dated 2.2.2000 passed by the Customs, Excise Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for short the Tribunal Civil Appeals arising out of SLP Nos.
This companytention had number been urged either before the Designated Authority or the Tribunal and, therefore, cannot be permitted to be urged for the first time in these appeals.Period of investigation was from 1st April, 2000 to 31st March, 2001.
9/03 AD dated 13.6.2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
C/14/2003 AD.
7159 7161 of 2004 against the final order Nos.
In para 14 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has companyverted the anti dumping duty in US dollar terms on its own volition even though there was numberprayer by the appellant or a cross appeal objection by any other party.
773 of 2001 is against the final order imposing anti dumping duty for a period of five years, Civil Appeals arising out of SLP Nos.
The Designated Authority, after analyzing the material placed before it, came to the companyclusion that the cessation of the duty is likely to lead to companytinuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and therefore it was necessary to companytinue with imposition of anti dumping duty for another five years.
In so far as Japan is companycerned, proceedings were initiated at the instance of Respondent No.
Order No.
22905 22906 of 2003 Korea Kumho Petrochemicals Co.Ltd. Appellant Versus Union of India Ors.
17/2004 NB A dated 1.7.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for short the Tribunal in Appeal No.
In appeal, as numbered by the Tribunal in para 5, the companynsel for the appellant had companyfined his arguments on the point of injury, causal link and cumulation of imports from Korea and Germany while assessing injury.
22905 22906 of 2003.
Civil Appeal No.
Respondents Civil Appeal No.
With Civil Appeal Nos.
7159 7161 of 2004 Punit Resins Ltd. Appellant Versus Union of India Ors.
Respondents Bhan, J. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.
Against the order of the Tribunal upholding the above findings of the Designated Authority, the present appeals have been filed by the appellant.
This appeal is directed against the final order of the Tribunal upholding the final order passed by the Designated Authority under Rule 17, recommending levy of anti dumping duty companysequent upon which, the Central Government imposed anti dumping duty under Rule 18.
22905 22906 of 2003 against the final order No.
Thereafter, the designated authority companyfirmed its preliminary finding dated 30.12.1996.
Shri A. Sharan, learned Addl.
C/260/2002 AD, C/596/2002 AD and C/687/2002 AD and Civil Appeal No.
7159 7162 of 2004 are against the order passed for companytinuance of anti dumping duty in the Sunset Review for another period of five years.
14 16/2004 NB A dated 1.7.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos.
10/03 AD and Misc.
Respondents Civil Appeal Nos.
7162 of 2004 Korea Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. Appellant Versus Ministry of Finance Ors.
1703 of 2006 Arising out of SLP Nos.
Aggrieved against the aforesaid order companytinuing the imposition of such duty, the appellant filed appeals before the Tribunal which were rejected.
Common facts giving rise to the cause of action and the litigation are as follows Before adverting to the issues raised in these appeals it will be relevant to mention the historical background of the relevant statute and the Rules.
773 of 2001 against the final Order No.
22 of 2000 AD in Appeal No.
This judgment shall dispose of Civil Appeal No.
