2003 (11) TMI 80 - SC - Customs

Anti-dumping duty - Dumping of optical fibre - Notification dated 28th June 2000 bearing No. 94/2000-Customs - CEGAT quashed Notification - Held that - CEGAT has held in favour of M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited on the aspect of margin of dumping injury suffered by domestic industry and causal connection between dumping and material injury. CEGAT has however quashed the Notification on the ground that the Designated Authority has wrongly taken the production capacity of M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Limited at 10 lakh K.M. during the period of investigation i.e. from 1st April 1998 to 28th February 1999. According to CEGAT the production capacity during the period of investigation was not 10 lakh K.M. We have also examined the file and we find that the conclusion of CEGAT that the Designated Authority had taken the production capacity at 10 lakh K.M. is not correct. Even otherwise we find that the approach of CEGAT is wrong. Once it comes to the conclusion that there was dumping and that the domestic industry was injured merely on the ground that the Designated Authority did not properly assess the injury CEGAT cannot set aside the order of the Designated Authority or the Notification. In such cases it is the duty of CEGAT to re-work the figures and decide what if any should be the anti-dumping duty - Matter remitted back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge against the Order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 13th December, 2000.
- Interpretation of Rule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995.
- Assessment of dumping, injury to domestic industry, and causal connection in the context of anti-dumping duty.
- Review of the decision by CEGAT regarding the production capacity of a company during the investigation period.
- Determination of the duty to be imposed in case of errors in assessing injury to domestic industry.
- Remittal of the appeals back to CEGAT for a decision on merits.
- Consideration of the manufacturing status of the appellants.
- Directive to CEGAT for expeditious disposal of appeals within a specified timeframe.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court reviewed the appeals challenging the Order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 13th December, 2000. The Court decided to send the matter back to CEGAT after establishing guidelines regarding the interpretation of Rule 7 of the Customs Tariff Rules. The Court emphasized the need for a case-to-case assessment of confidentiality requirements under Rule 7 and highlighted the importance of providing non-confidential summaries of confidential information to ensure fairness in appeal processes.

2. The Court examined CEGAT's decision on dumping, injury to the domestic industry, and the causal connection between them. While CEGAT ruled in favor of a company on certain grounds, it was found that CEGAT's conclusion regarding the production capacity of the company during the investigation period was incorrect. The Court clarified that if there are errors in assessing injury, the appellate authority should re-evaluate the figures and determine the appropriate anti-dumping duty instead of setting aside the original order.

3. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the appeals back to CEGAT for a decision on merits. The Court granted CEGAT the discretion to determine the confidentiality of materials presented before the Designated Authority. Additionally, the Court addressed the manufacturing status dispute among the appellants, stating that it was unnecessary to delve into the controversy as affected parties could challenge the anti-dumping duty levy on legal grounds.

4. Finally, the Court directed CEGAT to expedite the disposal of all appeals within three months. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of a timely resolution in such matters.