Anti-Dumping on Tyre Curing Presses also known as Tyre Vulcanisers or Rubber Processing Machineries for tyres, excluding Six Day Light Curing Press for curing bi-cycle tyres

[TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II,
SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)]
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE)

Notification No. 11/2016-Customs (ADD)

 New Delhi, the dated 29th March, 2016


G.S.R. (E). – Whereas, the designated authority, vide notification No. 15/22/2014-DGAD,
dated the 7th January, 2015, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section
1, dated the 7th January, 2015, had initiated a review in the matter of continuation of antidumping
duty on imports of Tyre Curing Presses also known as Tyre Vulcanisers or Rubber
Processing Machineries for tyres, excluding Six Day Light Curing Press for curing bi-cycle
tyres (hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), originating in or exported from the
People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the subject country), imposed vide
notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)
No. 01/2010-Customs as amended, dated the 8th January, 2010, published in the Gazette of
India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 21(E), dated the
8th January, 2010;
 And whereas, the Central Government had extended the period of imposition of
anti-dumping duty on the subject goods, originating in or exported from the subject country,
upto and inclusive of the 7th January, 2016, vide notification of the Government of India, in
the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No.06/2015-Customs(ADD), dated the 3rd
March, 2015, published in Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) of the Gazette of India,
Extraordinary, vide number G.S.R 170(E), dated the 3rd March, 2015;
 And whereas, in the matter of review of anti-dumping duty on import of the subject
goods, originating in or exported from the subject country, the designated authority in its
final findings published vide notification No. 15/22/2014-DGAD, dated the 5th January,
2016, in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1, dated the 5th January, 2016 has
come to the conclusion that-
(a) the subject goods have been exported to India from the subject country below its
normal value;
(b) the domestic industry has suffered material injury;
(c) the material injury has been caused by the dumped imports of the subject goods from
subject country;
and has recommended imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty on the subject goods,
originating in or exported from the subject country.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (5) of
section 9A of the said Customs Tariff Act, read with rules 18 and 23 of the Customs Tariff
(Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and
for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, the Central Government, on the basis of the
aforesaid final findings of the designated authority, hereby imposes on the goods, the
description of which is specified in column (3) of the Table below, falling under tariff item of
the First Schedule to the said Customs Tariff Act as specified in the corresponding entry in
column (2), the specification of which is specified in column (4), originating in the country as
specified in the corresponding entry in column (5) and produced by the producer as specified
in the corresponding entry in column (7), when exported from the country as specified in the
corresponding entry in column (6), by the exporter as specified in the corresponding entry in
column (8), and imported into India, an anti-dumping duty at the rate to be worked out as
percentage of the CIF value of imports of the subject goods as specified in the corresponding
entry in column (9) of the said Table.
Table
S.
No
Tarif
f
Item
Description
of goods
Specifi
cation
Country
of origin
Country
 of
export
Produce
r
Exporte
r
% of
CIF
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1 8477
51 00
Tyre curing
Presses
except Six
Day Light
Curing Press
for curing bicycle
tyres
All
sizes
upto
130”
People’s
Republic
of China
People’s
Republic
of China
Any Any 15
2 8477
51 00 -do- -doPeople’s

Republic
of China
Any Any Any 15
3 8477
51 00 -do- -do- Any
People’s
Republic
of China
Any Any 15
 2. The anti-dumping duty imposed under this notification shall be effective for a period
of five years from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette and shall
be paid in Indian currency.
Note.- For the purpose of this notification, “CIF value” means assessable value as determined
under section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962).
 [F. No.354/80/2009-TRU(Pt.-I)]
 (K.Kalimuthu)
Under Secretary to the Government of India 

New Notification No 39/2016-Customs(N.T.)

[Notification No. 39/2016 - Customs (N.T), dated 15.03.2016] [http://cbec.gov.in/htdocs-cbec/customs/cs-act/notifications/notfns-2016/cs-nt2016/csnt39-2016] (From APUS Browser - small, fast and clean)

Preventive Vigilance Action of scrutiny of Adjudication/ Appeal Orders

Directorate General of Vigilance
Customs & Central Excise
2nd & 3rd Floor, Hotel Samrat,
Kautilya Marg, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi-110021

 F.No.V.500/39/2015 Dated /04/2015

To,
All Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners of Central Excise,
All Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners of Central Excise & Customs,
All Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners of Service Tax,
All Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioner of Customs,
All Principal Chief Commissioners/ Chief Commissioners of Customs (Preventive),
All Principal Directors General/ Directors General/Principal Chief Commissioner (AR)

Sub: Preventive Vigilance Action of scrutiny of Adjudication/ Appeal Orders — clarification
regarding

Sir/ Madam,
 Reference is invited to DG (Vigilance) letters F.No.V.500/100/2009-Pt.1 dated 24.02.2010
and 27.04.2010 regarding scrutiny of adjudication/appellate orders from vigilance angle as a
preventive vigilance action, in terms of which the review committees were advised to undertake
scrutiny of adjudication/appellate orders from vigilance angle as per the criteria laid down by the
Supreme Court in its decision in the case of K K Dhawan as noted in CVC Circular No. 39/11/07
dated 01.11.2007.
2. It need not be overemphasized that the adjudicating and appellate authorities are required
to pass fair, judicious and legally sustainable speaking orders which can withstand judicial scrutiny
at higher appellate fora. Apprehensions have, however, been raised that the above instructions
have created a 'fear of vigilance' amongst the field officers, due to which some of the adjudicating/
appellate authorities are resorting to confirmation of demands through non-speaking orders/
without following judicial discipline/ non consideration of pleas put forth by the parties, etc. merely
due to a fear of coming under vigilance scrutiny. Such unjust orders, besides attracting adverse
judicial scrutiny, cause harassment to the trade and undermine the efforts of the Department in
providing a non-adversarial tax regime to taxpayers.
2
3. The matter has been examined. It is noted that since 1997, only 18 adjudication orders have
been taken up for scrutiny by the Directorate General of Vigilance. This indicates that on an
average, only one case in a year i.e. 0.001% of the total quasi-judicial orders passed in the
department have been taken up for vigilance scrutiny. The fear of vigilance action against
adjudicating/ appellate authorities in respect of adjudication/ appeal orders, therefore, appears to
be totally unfounded and misplaced. With a view to remove any such misgiving/ 'fear of vigilance'
in adjudication/ appeal matters, further clarifications are being issued as under.
4. The instructions of this Directorate dated 24.02.2010 and 27.04.2010 regarding scrutiny of
adjudication/appellate orders from vigilance angle were issued based on a suggestion of CVC made
in 2009 after the vigilance audit of Customs & Central Excise Department, wherein CVC had
suggested that as a measure of preventive vigilance, adjudication orders involving a sum of Rs.50
lakh and above should be examined from the vigilance angle also. It was also informed that while
making any such scrutiny of adjudication/ appellate orders from vigilance angle, the criteria
referred in CVC's Circular 39/11/07 dated 01.11.2007 (copy enclosed) and as laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. KK Dhawan (copy enclosed) must be
kept in consideration for examining the lapses of officers exercising quasi-judicial powers to see
whether any of the said criteria was attracted or not. For reference, the criteria prescribed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court are reproduced below:
• Where the officer had acted in a manner as would reflect on his reputation for integrity or
good faith or devotion to duty
• If there is prima facie material to show recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of his
duty
• If he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a government servant
• If he had acted negligently or that he omitted the prescribed conditions which are essential
for the exercise of the statutory powers
• If he had acted in order to unduly favour a party
• If he had been actuated by corrupt motive however, small the bribe may be because Lord
Coke said long ago "though the bribe may be small, yet the fault is great"
3
5. Adjudication and Appellate Orders are examined by Review Committees of Chief
Commissioners or Commissioners comprehensively, including from the angle of legality and
propriety, with a view to take a decision whether the orders are acceptable or to be appealed
against in higher appellate fora. Examination of orders from vigilance angle is also a part of this
exercise. It is, however, clarified that an adjudication/ apellate order is not required to be referred
by the Review Committee for further vigilance scrutiny merely on the ground of it being an antirevenue
order or having some legal infirmities (for which review and appellate remedy is available),
unless there are genuine reasons to doubt the bonafides of the decision or where the order shows
a conspicuous violation of the procedures involved or recklessness, etc., as per the above criteria
laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the KK Dhawan's judgment and as circulated by CVC in Circular
No.39/11/07 dated 01.11.2007.
6. It is expected that senior officers in the field, given their vast experience, would be able to
distinguish between the orders warranting scrutiny from vigilance angle and those which do not.
 This issues with the approval of Chairman, CBEC.
 sd/-
(Vanaja Sarna)
Director General (Vigilance)
Encl:
1. Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Union of India and Others vs. KK Dhawan.
2. CVC Circular No.39/11/07 dated 01.11.2007