2008 (9) TMI 59 - SC - Customs

Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - Whether 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) & not on any other like article Tribunal s decision needs proper evaluation - said question will be decided in accordance with law in an appropriate matter

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term "like article" under Rule 2(d) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether the expression "like article" includes only the article identified for investigation under Rule 4(1)(b) or any other similar article. The case involved the issuance of notifications under the Customs Tariff Rules regarding anti-dumping duty on Acyclic alcohol. The timeline of notifications, including Initiation Notification, Preliminary Finding, Preliminary Notification, and Final Finding, was crucial in understanding the context of the case.

The Court noted that the duty on Acyclic alcohol was leviable for five years, which ended on a specific date. Despite the duty not being extended beyond the initial five years, the respondent had paid the duty for the entire period. The Court refrained from delving into the question of law at that moment but expressed the need for a thorough evaluation of the Tribunal's decision concerning the interpretation of "like article" under Rule 2(d) of the Customs Tariff Rules.

In the final disposition, the Court decided not to interfere with the case based on the specific facts but explicitly kept the question of law open for future determination in an appropriate matter. The Civil Appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs, indicating that the Court did not find it necessary to award costs in this instance. The judgment emphasized the importance of understanding the legal interpretation of terms like "like article" in the context of anti-dumping duty regulations and left the door open for further legal scrutiny on the matter.