2005 (3) TMI 503 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Disclosure of basis and method for arriving at normal value by Designated Authority, confidentiality of information, adjournment request pending Supreme Court decision.

The judgment deals with the issue of the Designated Authority not disclosing the basis and methods used to arrive at the normal value of a product, which was considered confidential. The appellant's counsel argued that, as per a previous Tribunal decision in the case of Birla Ericsson Opticals, such information cannot be confidential. The Tribunal in the Birla Ericsson Opticals case held that the basis and method for determining normal value cannot be confidential when the information is not based on actual data of a manufacturer. The Tribunal emphasized that all information used to construct the normal value must be disclosed unless it relates to a specific manufacturer. The same principle should apply to export price as well. Due to the stay of the Tribunal's decision by the Supreme Court, the request for adjournment was granted until the Supreme Court's decision on the matter, allowing the interested party to seek early hearing from the Supreme Court if desired.

The judgment highlights the importance of transparency in disclosing the basis and methods for determining normal value by the Designated Authority. It emphasizes that such information should not be considered confidential when it does not pertain to specific manufacturers. The decision in the Birla Ericsson Opticals case sets a precedent for the disclosure of information used in calculating normal value and export price. The Tribunal's decision to adjourn the case pending the Supreme Court's decision reflects a cautious approach to ensure consistency and compliance with legal principles. The appellant's counsel's request for adjournment was deemed reasonable in light of the pending Supreme Court decision, allowing for a fair resolution of the issue at hand.