2015 (6) TMI 731 - SC - Customs

Levy of anti dumping duty - designated authority found that Aniline originating in, or exported from, European Union was exported to India below normal value, resulting in dumping - The finding arrived at applying the best judgment assessment - Tribunal set aside the anti dumping duty - Held that - It is a case where the Designated Authority applied the provisions of Rule 6(8) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Rules ) and determined the anti-dumping duty on the basis of best judgment assessment . There is no dispute that in those cases where the noticee does not cooperate in the inquiry or furnishes the requisite material, it is open to the Designated Authority to invoke Rule 6(8) and determine the normal value of the product on the basis of best judgment assessment . This is so held in the case of Designated Authority v. Haldor Topsoe 2000 (7) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . However, while carrying out the best judgment assessment , it is necessary for the Designated Authority to base its decision on the relevant considerations/ material. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has found many loopholes in the exercise carried out by the Designated Authority which prompted the CEGAT not to accept the valuation of goods arrived at by the orders of the Designated Authority - there is no merit in this appeal as we are in agreement with the aforesaid analysis by the CEGAT in the impugned order - Decided against revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Designated Authority's application of Rule 6(8) of the Customs Tariff Rules for anti-dumping duty determination based on "best judgment assessment" and the requirement of relevant considerations/material for such assessment.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court considered the issue of the Designated Authority's application of Rule 6(8) of the Customs Tariff Rules for anti-dumping duty determination based on "best judgment assessment." The Court noted that when a noticee does not cooperate in the inquiry or furnish material, the Designated Authority can invoke Rule 6(8) to determine the normal value of the product through a "best judgment assessment." The Court referred to the case law of Designated Authority v. Haldor Topsoe [2000 (6) SCC 626] to establish this principle. However, the Court emphasized that for a "best judgment assessment" to be valid, it is crucial for the Designated Authority to base its decision on relevant and authentic considerations/material.

In the specific case under consideration, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) identified several deficiencies in the exercise conducted by the Designated Authority. The CEGAT refused to accept the valuation of goods determined by the Designated Authority due to these loopholes. The CEGAT highlighted that the prices of Aniline reported in a trade journal, which the Designated Authority relied on for its assessment, were not considered relevant facts as required under Rule 6(8). The CEGAT pointed out that the source materials for the prices of Aniline were not disclosed, and their authenticity was not established by the Designated Authority. Moreover, the Aniline prices mentioned in the journal were part of an article on the global trends in the Aniline industry and did not specifically pertain to trade data for the week. The CEGAT concluded that the Designated Authority was misled by the journal and failed to recognize that the contents were not judicially noticeable facts but mere statements in the press.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and agreed with the analysis conducted by the CEGAT in the impugned order. Consequently, the Court upheld the decision of the CEGAT, leading to the dismissal of the appeals in question. Civil Appeal Nos. 1790-1791 of 2004 were also dismissed in line with the orders issued for Civil Appeal Nos. 1788-1789 of 2004.