Page 269 - MANUAL OF SOP

Manual of OP for Trade Remedy Investigations

9.6.2. The Excel working sheets (along with applicable formulae)containing the
following data for POI and the injury period are also required to be submitted:

S. N. Document
1 Details of Job work done during POI, if any
2 Details of Administration Overheads

3 Details of Selling & Distribution Overheads
4 Details of Other/Miscellaneous Overheads
5 Details of Misc. Income
6 Details of HO Expenses and their allocation
7 Details of by-product/wastage/rework generated

8 The basis of major utility allocation done for PUC & Other Products
9 Details of revaluation/impairment of asset details, if any, during POI & previous
years, if included in the books of accounts.
10 The explanation for the methodology adopted in segregating the import data
into PUC and NPUC.

9.6.3. The team is required to examine the adequacy and accuracy of evidence in terms
of Rule 5 of Rules. The audited accounts must be furnished along with the application
for initiation. In case POI is not the same as the financial year or the POI is too recent to
have the audited accounts available, the Profit & Loss Account figures along with NFA
figures and working Capital details for POI duly certified by the authorised officer of
the company for the initiation purposes. This is subject to subsequent submission of
duly audited/certified accounts within the stipulated period as per the initiation
notification.

POST-INITIATION:
9.6.4. The methodology followed for computation of NIP is detailed in Annexure-
III of the Rules which is being uniformly followed and has been held as legally valid
by the Courts . In addition to the certified formats/documents submitted at the
6
6 SeeBASF Petronas Chemicals v Union of India, 2017 (347) ELT 354 (CESTAT, New Delhi) where the NIP methodology
has been accepted (the NIP for the entire POI was determined by adopting best production capacity utilization norms
etc. over the injury period as stipulated in Annexure-III to Rules); Greenply Industries Ltd. v Union of India, 2017 (351)
ELT 315 (CESTAT, New Delhi), it was decided by CESTAT that spot verification is not always required; Phillips Carbon
Black Ltd. v Union of India,1999 (65) ECC 600 (CESTAT, Kolkatta),it was observed that the determination of NIP
(Fair Selling Price) involves complex issues as it is to arrive at a selling price in a hypothetical situation (“the principles
laid down in Annexure III for the cost of production categorically state the best utilization of raw material/utilities/
production capacities are to be considered. The reason is mentioned in the said principles. This is to nullify injury, if
any, caused to DI due to inefficiency. We note that the DA is bound by the principles laid down in the said Annexure
as it is part of the statutory provisions of AD Rules, 1995”).

246