spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Date of filing of ST-3 returns extended - returns for April to June, 2012 to be filed by 25th November, 2012 only.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif BREAKING NEWS : Service Tax half yearly ST-3 return to cover period from April, 2012 to June, 2012 only (ST Notification 47/2012)spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif All Service Tax assessees are informed that they will not be able to file ST 3 returns in ACES now and have to wait until the modified version of ST 3 Form which is made available in a few weeks on aces.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Penalty: Section 76: No delay in depositing service tax with Revenue: Penalty not imposable.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Refund: Export of Services: Terminal Handling Charges also a port service.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Penalty: Once the entire demand is set aside by Commissioner (A) and that order is not challenged by the department: Commissioner cannot impose penalty under Section 76 by passing a Review Order: Penalty set aside.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Cargo Handling Service: The activity of transportation and stacking within the stockyard premises not covered: Demand set aside.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Finance Act, 2012spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifDefinitions introduced in Section 65C, Section 66B (Charge of Service Tax), Section 66C (Determination of Place of Provision of Service), Section 66D (Negative List), Section 66E (Declared Services), Section 66F (Bundled Services), Amendment to Section 67 (omitting of Explanation, Amendment to Section 68 (sharing of taxes between provider and receiver) would operate from 01.07.2012.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifThe notifications amending Cenvat Credit Rules, Valuation Rules, Service Tax Rules, Works Contract Composition Scheme have not been issued.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifSection 65, 65A, 66 & 66A would cease to operate from 01.06.2012spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifThe clause (A), (B), (D) & (E) of Section 143 of the Finance Act,2012 will come into force from 01.06.2012 as per Notification No.18/2012 dated 01.06.2012spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifNegative list based service tax will come into force from 1st july 2012spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifFinance Bill, 2012; gets enacted on May 28, 2012 : Finance Act (No 23 of 2012)spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Aam aadmi becomes khaas aadmi spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifCentral Excise and Service Tax returns combined into a one page form "EST-1"spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifCentral Excise rates increased from 10 % to 12%spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifService Tax Rate to be 12%  spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Date of filing of ST-3 returns extended - returns for April to June, 2012 to be filed by 25th November, 2012 only.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif BREAKING NEWS : Service Tax half yearly ST-3 return to cover period from April, 2012 to June, 2012 only (ST Notification 47/2012)spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif All Service Tax assessees are informed that they will not be able to file ST 3 returns in ACES now and have to wait until the modified version of ST 3 Form which is made available in a few weeks on aces.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Penalty: Section 76: No delay in depositing service tax with Revenue: Penalty not imposable.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Refund: Export of Services: Terminal Handling Charges also a port service.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Penalty: Once the entire demand is set aside by Commissioner (A) and that order is not challenged by the department: Commissioner cannot impose penalty under Section 76 by passing a Review Order: Penalty set aside.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Cargo Handling Service: The activity of transportation and stacking within the stockyard premises not covered: Demand set aside.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Finance Act, 2012spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifDefinitions introduced in Section 65C, Section 66B (Charge of Service Tax), Section 66C (Determination of Place of Provision of Service), Section 66D (Negative List), Section 66E (Declared Services), Section 66F (Bundled Services), Amendment to Section 67 (omitting of Explanation, Amendment to Section 68 (sharing of taxes between provider and receiver) would operate from 01.07.2012.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifThe notifications amending Cenvat Credit Rules, Valuation Rules, Service Tax Rules, Works Contract Composition Scheme have not been issued.spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifSection 65, 65A, 66 & 66A would cease to operate from 01.06.2012spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifThe clause (A), (B), (D) & (E) of Section 143 of the Finance Act,2012 will come into force from 01.06.2012 as per Notification No.18/2012 dated 01.06.2012spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifNegative list based service tax will come into force from 1st july 2012spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifFinance Bill, 2012; gets enacted on May 28, 2012 : Finance Act (No 23 of 2012)spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gif Aam aadmi becomes khaas aadmi spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifCentral Excise and Service Tax returns combined into a one page form "EST-1"spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifCentral Excise rates increased from 10 % to 12%spacer.gifsto247.gifspacer.gifService Tax Rate to be 12%
Share

 

Origin of Anti Dumping Duty

The concept of anti-dumping find its roots in the trade practices of 1930s when many countries resorted to dumping of goods into foreign countries at extremely low prices for earning foreign exchange. Manipulative currency practices such as devaluation of currency, was very popular in such countries for cost reduction of goods manufactured and traded globally by domestic industries.

Anti-dumping legislation arose at the end of the nineteenth century as a policy alternative to frequent revision of import tariffs and was used by different countries to protect their domestic industries from the ill effects of dumping. Canada was the first country to launch antidumping measures in 1904 against American firms who were found dumping steel at discriminatory prices. Many Commonwealth countries also followed suit and imposed anti-dumping duties during next ten years on the predatory pricing policies of exporting countries. The perceived threat of predatory practices resulted in the first American anti-dumping legislation under the Revenue Act of 1916. In 1921 Australia, Great Britan, New Zealand and the United States implemented new antidumping statutes. Along with Canada’s original legislation, these legislations served as the foundation for Article VI of The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT), 1947.

The unsuccessful struggle of League of Nations between the two World Wars on the issue of dumping and differential pricing gave a thrust to the post war efforts of formation of International Trade Organisation and GATT. The General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT) 1947 was the first effort to lay down the rules governing International Trade for establishing free trade between countries. When the pros and cons of dumping were examined during formation of GATT, it was found that the dumping itself is not a bad practice but can be a kind of booster to the industry. Dumping was found to be a source of additional revenue to the industry and also benefitted the consumers by availability of goods at cheaper rate. The dumping, therefore, was not prohibited under the GATT but, when dumping was seen causing any kind of injury to the domestic industry of importing country, then, to nullify the effect of dumping, the GATT allowed its signatory Countries to take anti-dumping measures. 

The United States of America was the first member nation to address the unfair trade practices of dumping and subsidized exports before the watchdogs of international trade. There was general support for antidumping and countervailing measures, though there were differences on the scope of dumping definition and on retaliatory measures other than anti-dumping duties. The developing countries favoured a wider definition to include price, service, exchange and social dumping, whereas the developed countries favoured a narrower definition to avoid opening up of a wide range of retaliatory measures. On the question of retaliatory measures the imposition of quantitative restrictions was finally avoided and antidumping duties were accepted as the right course to neutralize dumping margins. Thus the first multinational rules and conditions on antidumping under which individual countries were justified in taking defensive measures, were incorporated in Article VI of GATT. 

The rules of anti-dumping were again taken up for discussing during the Kennedy Round negotiations (1946-1967). Unites States, who argued in favour of non-tariff barriers, sought to turn the dumping controversy to its advantage by voting for a comprehensive anti-dumping agreement. The resulting antidumping code also curtailed procedural abuses in the Canadian and British legislations. The Canadian law on anti-dumping did not have any injury criterion while the British statue provided for imposing of antidumping duties without notice and without opportunities to the parties to be heard. Since the Kennedy Round Antidumping Code was negotiated without advance authority by the Congress, it failed to be implemented in the United States. The US administration introduced trigger-price-mechanism, which ensured automatic institution of antidumping proceedings and imposition of antidumping duties on sales below the “trigger price”. For more than a decade the foreign governments argued that the United States was not living up to its international obligations. 

The Tokyo Round negotiations (1973-1979) brought revolutionary changes in the injury criteria. The Trade Agreements Act, 1979 of the United States allowed antidumping procedures to be aimed narrowly at the effects of dumped imports on the domestic industry that produced the like products. 

The anti-dumping provisions found prominence and universal acceptance only after the advent of World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1995. Prior to WTO, there were no restriction on tariff rate and therefore the effect of dumping was offset by high tariff rate. Under the regime of WTO, the trade between the members of WTO was liberalised by lowering the tariff leaving no scope for the member countries to avoid the ill-effects of unfair trade practices by hiking tariff rate and this resulted in increased use of anti-dumping measures. 

Prior to the 1980s, only the traditional users like Canada, the United States, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand were relatively active in pursuing antidumping actions. After the Urguay Round of negotiation, the Anti-dumping code was formulated in the form of The Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT – 1994, commonly known as Anti-Dumping Agreement, leading to adoption of antidumping laws by more countries and a surge in the number of antidumping investigations in the last two decades. 

As per Article VI of GATT 1994, anti-dumping process can be initiated by the importing country if the price of the product exported from one country to another 

(a) is less than the comparable price of such product when destined for consumption in the domestic market of the exporting country, or in the absence of such domestic price,

(b) is less than either the highest comparable price for the like product for export to any third country in the ordinary course of trade, or

(c) is less than the cost of production of the product in the country of origin plus a reasonable addition for selling cost and profit.

             
 
              
www.customsindiaonline.com
 
 
                               
 
Copyright 2010, AntiDumpingLaws.com. All rights reserved.
This is a Beta Version.