27 January 2009
Supreme Court
Download

DESIGNATED AUTH.MIN.OF COM.& INDUS. Vs INDIAN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS LTD.

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT,ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, , ,
Case number: SLP(C) No.-001795-001795 / 2009
Diary number: 29363 / 2008
Advocates: B. KRISHNA PRASAD Vs B. VIJAYALAKSHMI MENON


1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO  1795 OF 2009  

Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce & Industry & Anr.    ...Petitioners

Versus            

Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. ...Respondent

J U D G M E N T  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the Division Bench

of the Delhi High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.

The issue before the High Court was with regard to interpretation of Anti

Dumping provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (in short  the ‘Act’)

and the Custom Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-

Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and For Determination of Injury) Rules,

1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’).  

2

2. The  writ  petition  was  allowed  primarily  relying  on  Reliance

Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority and Ors. (2006 (10) SCC 368) and

the interpretation placed on Section 9A(5) of the Act in the matter and scope

of  Section  9A(5)  of  the  Act  as  considered  by  this  Court  in  Rishiroop

Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Designated Authority & Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 303).

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the issues are

of  complex  nature  and  will  have  wide  ramifications  on  domestic  and

international business and commerce.

4. We are of  the view that  the view expressed  in  Reliance Industries

case (supra)  needs a fresh look and following questions need to be dealt

with by a Larger Bench:

(1) Whether the interpretation that Anti Dumping Duty is country

specific  rather  than  exporter  specific  in  consonance  with the

provision of Rules 12, 15, 17(3), 18, 19(3) and Annexure 1 to

the Rules.    

2

3

(2) Whether the interpretation placed upon Rule 7 of the Rules is

correct  in  so  far  as  it  diminishes  the Rule  of  confidentiality

statutorily provided for under Rule 7.

 

5. The records be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India

for necessary orders.

 

…………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

……………………………………J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, January 27, 2009

3