IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5590  OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.8540/2007)

Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce ...Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s. Lubrizon (India) Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

In this case, the following question of law arises for determination:

“Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the CESTAT was right in holding that expression “like article” includes only the article which is the subject matter of investigation after being identified for the purpose of Rule 4(1)(b) and not on any other 'like article'.

On 31st January, 2002, Initiation Notification was issued under Rule 5 of the

Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on

Dumped Articles  and  for  Determination  of  Injury)  Rules,  1995.    A Preliminary

Finding was given on 29th July,  2002 pursuant to which the Designated Authority

issued Preliminary Notification on 5th September, 2002.  The Final Finding was given

by the  Designated  Authority  on  29th July, 2003 and,

CA @ SLP(C) 8540/07..contd..

1

ultimately, in terms of the said Final Findings, Final Notification came to be issued

under Section 9A(1)(5) on 1st October, 2003.  The effect of the Final Notification was

to impose anti-dumping duty on different types of Acyclic alcohol.

As can be seen from the afore-stated dates,  the  Preliminary Notification

came to be issued on 5th September, 2002.  The duty was leviable for five years.  It was

extendable but, in this case, it has not been extended.  This period of five years, in the

present case, ended on or about 4th September, 2007.  Since then, it  has not been

extended.  In the meantime, we are informed that the respondent has paid duty for

five years.  In the circumstances, we do not wish to go into the question of law, quoted

herein-above.  Prima facie, we are of the view  that the Tribunal's  decision needs

proper evaluation and consideration particularly, in the context of the connotation to

be given to the words “like article” under Rule 2(d) of the said Rules, 1995.

For the afore-stated reasons, although on the facts of the case, we do not

wish to interfere, we keep the question of law expressly open.  The said question will

be decided in accordance with law in an appropriate matter.   

CA @ SLP(C) 8540/07..contd..

Subject to  what is stated herein-above,  Civil Appeal  

is disposed of with no order as to costs.

                         ...................J.               (S.H. KAPADIA)

2

                                      ...................J.

                                       (B. SUDERSHAN REDDY) New Delhi, September 10, 2008.

3