<p>A bench set aside the order of the Commerce Ministry observing that while fixing the duty over import of NTCF, the industry was not given a chance to represent its case.<br /><br />The apex court also set aside the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had confirmed the duty. The Supreme Court order came over the petitions filed by the Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association , along with its members. The Finance Ministry had imposed a provisional anti- dumping duty on NTCF from China in 2004. The duty ranged from $0.54 per kg to $0.81 per kg with effect from July 26, 2004. The following year, on March 9, 2005, it passed the final duty.<br /><br />However, this was challenged by the tyre manufacturers on the ground that they were not given a chance to be heard and keep their view.<br /><br />They had further said that while fixing the duty, DA had completely ignored the finding that in 2004 Chinese exporters were selling NTCF below the non-injurious price. The industry contended that DA had granted a public hearing to all the parties on September 2004. <br /><br />However, in November, the officer functioning as the DA was transferred, and a new officer took over as the DA.</p>
<p>A bench set aside the order of the Commerce Ministry observing that while fixing the duty over import of NTCF, the industry was not given a chance to represent its case.<br /><br />The apex court also set aside the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had confirmed the duty. The Supreme Court order came over the petitions filed by the Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association , along with its members. The Finance Ministry had imposed a provisional anti- dumping duty on NTCF from China in 2004. The duty ranged from $0.54 per kg to $0.81 per kg with effect from July 26, 2004. The following year, on March 9, 2005, it passed the final duty.<br /><br />However, this was challenged by the tyre manufacturers on the ground that they were not given a chance to be heard and keep their view.<br /><br />They had further said that while fixing the duty, DA had completely ignored the finding that in 2004 Chinese exporters were selling NTCF below the non-injurious price. The industry contended that DA had granted a public hearing to all the parties on September 2004. <br /><br />However, in November, the officer functioning as the DA was transferred, and a new officer took over as the DA.</p>