9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 95. The above paragraph is quoted below : 3. In our view, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of this matter as we propose to send the matter back to CEGAT after laying down certain guidelines. From what has been argued before us, it appears that in pursuance 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 the Designated Authority is treated all materials submitted to it as confidential merely on a party asking that it be treated confidential. In our view, that is not the purport of Rule 7. Under Rule 7, the Designated Authority has to be satisfied as to the confidentiality of that material. Even if the material is confidential basis, to furnish a non-confidential summary thereof. If such a statement is not being furnished then that party should submit to the Designated Authority a statement of reasons why summarisation is not possible. In any event, under Rule 7(3) the Designated Authority can come to the conclusion that confidentiality is not warranted and it may, in certain cases, disregard that information. It must be remembered that not making relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and (7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub-rule (4) of rule 15 and sub-rule (4) of rule, 17, the copies of applications received under sub-rule (1) of rule 5, or any other information provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, be treated as such by it and no, such information shall be disclosed to any other party without specific authorisation of the party providing such information. (2) The designated authority may require the parties providing information on confidential basis to furnish non confidential summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing such information, such information is not susceptible of summary, such party may, submit to the designated authority a statement of reasons why summarisation is not possible. (3) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if the designated authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorise its d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... price : 10. It is the contention of the appellants including Exporters that the actual figure of NV and EP should be disclosed and cannot be treated as confidential. It is relevant to note that as at present DA does not disclose the actual figure of NV and EP. They also submit that the basis and method by which the DA arrived at the NV and EP should be treated as non-confidential. They further submit that if normal value is arrived at on the basis of constructed cost, other than of an individual manufacturer, full disclosure must be made of all elements going into it. As far as export price is concerned, it is their contention that such details on the basis of which export price had been worked out are to be disclosed. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the DA submitted that if actual figure of normal value is disclosed, it may enable the parties to work back to the actual information and data of individual exporters, and thus, compromising confidentiality. Similar objection is raised on behalf of the DA in respect of disclosure of actual figure of export price also. 11. It is clear from sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 that confidentiality can apply only to information provided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t s stand seriously prejudices their rights. They submit that the requirement of disclosure of relevant information cannot depend on whether a manufacturer is a single product company or a multi-product company or on the length of the POI. It is the case of the appellant that if the particular product under investigation is the only product of the company then the balance sheet of the company would contain all relevant information regarding that product, required for analysing the claim about injury. Such information cannot be withheld as confidential, only for the reason that the company is a multi-product company and its balance sheet need not show the information regarding the one product under investigation and therefore the information is not one available in public domain or that the period chosen as POI is less than one year. 13. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that all the information which could be available from the balance sheet of the company with reference to the product under investigation, if it is the only product of the company, such information should be made available even in the case of a multi-product company. Length of POI is also not relevant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
