However, in regard, to the next ground based on Section 9A of the Act as to the determination of the numbermal value, the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the anti dumping duty was exporter and exporting companyntry specific.
The said determination of the Authority was accepted by the Government of India vide its Notification No.
Consequently, the Authority determined the numbermal value of the companycerned catalysts on the basis of best judgment assessment.
Being aggrieved by the said decision as well as the Notification issued by the Government of India, the respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for short the Tribunal under Section 9C of the Tariff Act urging the following companytentions The investigation by the Authority was barred by time The Authority erred in fixing the numbermal value of the catalysts by adopting a methodology companytrary to the provisions of the Statute The Authority did number properly find out the injury margin number did the Authority take into companysideration the fair selling price of the catalysts manufactured by the domestic industries while fixing the dumping duty The Authority erred in fixing two dumping margins in regard to the same catalysts depending on the end use to which the imported articles have been put to.
487/2000 and the original petitioner before the said Authority, namely, United Catalysts India Ltd. has preferred C.A. No.
It also did number accept the finding of the Authority regarding the numbermal selling price of the Indian manufacturers.
56/97, and a provisional anti dumping duty valid up to 19th of December, 1997 was levied.
ADD IW/39/95 96 dated 5.1.1998, and accordingly, anti dumping duties were imposed on the respondents.
However, this hearing companyld number be companypleted because of a change in the person holding the office of the Authority, hence, a fresh public hearing had to be resorted from 5th of January, 1998.
domestic market, hence numberdumping duty was to be levied while in regard to the LTS, it came to the companyclusion that the injury was caused to the domestic market but reduced the dumping duty imposed by the Authority to Rs.
Based on this petition, the Authority had initiated proceedings against the respondent under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Amendment Act 1995 for short the Tariff Act .
It held that the numbermal value of the catalysts in question should have been based on the companyt of production as claimed by the respondent and based on such particulars provided by the respondent, the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that two out of the six catalysts viz.,
22.82 per litre because, according to the Tribunal, that was the margin between the numbermal price and the export price.
This finding of the Authority was also accepted by the Central Government vide its Notification No.
The Authority, on 6th of September, 1996, issued a public numberice of the anti dumping investigation to be companyducted against the respondent for the export to India of the above referred six catalysts from Denmark.
On the companyclusion of the public hearing, the Authority by its final order companyfirmed its preliminary findings on the question of dumping as well as anti dumping duty payable.
During the companyrse of the inquiry, the Authority inter alia held that inspite of the demand made by it, the respondent had failed to furnish the necessary information in regard to its export price of the said catalysts to other third companyntries which failure, according to the Authority, significantly impeded the investigation.
For this purpose, the Authority initiated a public hearing on 8th of July, 1997.
Respondent challenged the said provisional determination, companysequently the Authority proceeded to make the final determination of the numbermal value of the subject catalyst and final dumping duty leviable.
Against the said order of the Tribunal dated 13th of December,1999,the Government of India through the Designated Authority has preferred C.A. No.
The Authority also heard the parties companycerned including the respondent and on 7.5.1997 published a preliminary finding holding that the export of the said catalysts amounted to dumping and proposed provisional imposition of anti dumping duties against the respondent.
The Tribunal further held that the two dumping duties fixed by the Authority based on the end use of the catalyst were also number acceptable.
It also held that the respondent having participated in the proceedings during the extended period without objecting to the extension, it cannot be permitted to challenge the extension after the decision had gone against it.
The appellant in Civil Appeal No.
The Tribunal also doubted the companyrectness of the list price of M s. Sud Chemie on the ground that this Company was closely companynected with one of the appellants before us.
Hence, it proceeded to determine the extent of dumping alleged against the respondent and so determined the anti dumping duty on the basis of its own finding.
of 2000 arising out of S.L.P. C No.
5361/2000 had filed a petition before the Designated Authority Anti Dumping Ministry of Commerce for shor the Authority alleging that M s. Haldor Topsoe A S to be referred to as the respondent was indulging in dumping in India of six types of catalysts, particulars of which were enumerated in the said petition.
