Supreme Court of India
TATA CHEMICALS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 387
- Decided
- 24 March 2008
- Disposal
- Directions issued
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The appeals before CEGAT were maintainable because the challenge was to the determination embodied in the Customs Notification dated 27 October 1998.
Summary
The petitioners, Tata Chemicals Ltd. and others, challenged the anti‑dumping duty imposed by the Customs Notification dated 27 October 1998 and the subsequent determination made by the Designated Authority under Rule 18 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti‑Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appeals filed before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) were maintainable, given that the earlier two‑Judge Bench had dismissed the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) on the ground that the Designated Authority's orders were merely recommendatory and the final determination lay with the Central Government. The Court observed that the challenge was not only to the Designated Authority’s determination but also to the Customs Notification itself, a point omitted in the earlier order of 11 May 2000. Consequently, the Court held that the appeals to CEGAT were clearly maintainable because the determination had effectively taken place with the issuance of the 27 October 1998 Notification. The Court therefore entertained the SLPs, issued notice, and directed that the matters be placed before a two‑Judge Bench for consideration on merits.
Issues considered
- Whether an appeal to CEGAT against an anti‑dumping duty is maintainable when the challenge is to the Customs Notification imposing the duty.
- Whether the orders of the Designated Authority are merely recommendatory, rendering the appeal premature.
- Whether the Supreme Court should entertain the Special Leave Petitions in view of the distinct issue of the Notification dated 27 October 1998.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 136
Subjects
anti‑dumping dutycustoms notificationCEGATmaintainability of appealspecial leave petitionRule 18determination of injurySupreme Court
Judgment
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 320
A TATA CHEMICALS LTD.
v:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9423-9432 of 2000)
MARCH 24, 2008
B
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM
AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.)
Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and
c Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Arlie/es and for
Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995:
r 18 - Anti-dumping duty - Determination by Designated
Authority- Customs Notification dated 27.10.1998- Imposing
anti-dumping duty-Appeal before Customs, Excise and Gold
D Control Appellate Tribunal - Maintainability of - HELD:
Appeals before CEGAT were clearly maintainable when -t ...
challenge was to determination made as is clear from issuance
of Notification dated 27. 10. 1998.
A two-Judge Bench hearing Special Leave Petitions
E No. 9423-9432 of 2000 noted that earlier petitions for
special leave filed a!~ainst the order dated 21.1.2000
passed by .the CEGAT were dismissed by the Court on
11.5.2000 with the obsE~rvations that orders of Designated
Authority were recommendatory and appeal would lie
F against determination which was yet to be made by the
Central Government. The said Bench, however, also noted
that the challenge before the CEGAT was not only against
' the determination by the Designated Authority but also
against the Customs Notification dated 27.10.1998
G imposing the anti-dumping duty, and this fact was not
brought to the notice of the Bench which passed the order
, dated 11.5.2000. The Bench by its order dated 24.8.2000
observed that the SLPs would be maintainable and >---~
, accordingly issued notice. When the SLPs were listed for
HI 320 ~
I
TATA CHEMICALS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 321
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
hearing, the Bench concerned felt that there was conflict A
in this Court's orders dated 11.5.2000 and 24.8.2000 and,
therefore, observed that the matters should be placed
before a three-Judge Bench. Accordingly, the matters
were posted before the three-Judge Bench.
.. Giving the verdict on the issue, the Court B
~
HELD: The distinctive feature was challenge to the
Customs Notification dated 27th October, 1998. This
aspect was not apparently noted by the two-Judge Bench
'
when the matter was taken up on 11.5.2000. It is also noted c
in the order dated 24.8.2000 that determination as
contemplated by Rule 18 of the Customs Tariff
(Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-
Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination
of Injury) Rules, 1995 has taken place with the issuance
D
of Notification dated 27th October, 1998 and, therefore,
> -t the appeal could be maintainable to CEGAT. The order
dated 24.8.2000 has brought out the clearly distinctive
features. Since the order dated 24.8.2000 reflects the
correct position, the SLPs were rightly entertained. The
dismissal of the SLPs by order dated 11.5.2000 was on E
account of the fact that the relevant aspects were not
brought to the notice of the Bench. That being so, the
appeals before the CEGAT were clearly maintainable,
when challenge was to the determination made as is clear
from issuance of the Notification dated 27th October, 1998. F
The cases shall be placed before the Bench of two Judges
to be dealt with on merits. [para 4-6] [324-C, D, E, F, G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (C) Nos. 9423-9432 of 2000.
G
From the final Order No. 6-15/2000/AD dated 21 /1 /2000
of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal,
'--·( New Delhi in Appeal Nos. C/692-697/98-AD and C/63-66/99-
AD.
WITH H
322 t>UPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
A SLP (C) Nos. 9781-9790, 20463, 20464 of 2000, T.C. (C)
Nos. 6 of 2001, 44 & 4fi of 2002, W.P. (C) No. 23 of 2003, W.P.
(C) No. 558 of 2000, C.A. No. 7189 of 2005.
V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Ajay Sharma, Monish Panja, M.P.
Devanath, Manu Nair, Mark D'Souza (for MIS Suresh A. Shroff
B & Co.), Mis. Gagrat & Co., Mis. Suresh A. Shroff & Co., Ajit ,.
Kumar Sinha, Sandhya Kohli (for Mis. O.P. Khaitan & Co.), A.
Raghunath, M.P. Devanath for the Petitioner.
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Shalinder Saini, Rashmi Malhotra,
c Alka Sharma, T.A. Khan, B.V. Bairam Das, Krishnan Venugopal,
Abir Phukan, Ajit Kumar Sinha, B. Krishna Prasad, H.K. Puri,
Pramod B. Agarwala, R.S. Suri, R.D. Upadhyay, Shreekant N.
Terdal, Pratap Venugopal, Surekha Raman, Jhuma Bose (for
MIS. K.J. John & Co.) for the Respondents.
D Ankur Saigal, Bina Gupta, Rashmi Rekha, Gaurav Singh,
B. Krishna Prasad, Arun Kumar Sinha and A. Raghunath for the + ,
Applicants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
. E DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Since the Special Leave
Petitions, Writ Petitions, Civil Appeal and the Transfer
Applications involve identical issues, they are taken up together
for disposal. When SLP (C) Nos.9423-9432 of 2000 were listed
for admission, it was noted that earlier SLP (C) Nos.8203-8212
F of 2000 (Mis Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.)
filed against the judgme~nt and order dated 21st January, 2000
of Central Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi
(in short 'CEGAT') were dismissed with the observations that
the orders of the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce,
G New Delhi, were recommendatory; and that an appeal lies
against determination; and that determination had yet to be
made by the Central Government.
2. A two-Judge Bench hearing the Special Leave Petitions ~-
(Civil) Nos. 9423-9432 of 2000 noted that the challenge before
H the CEGAT was not only against the determination of the
TATA CHEMICALS LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA & bRS. 323
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
~ Designated Authority but also against the Customs Notification A
dated 27th October, 1998 whereby anti-dumping duty was
imposed. The Bench noted that this aspect was not apparently
brought to the notice of the Bench when it passed the order
dated 11th May, 2000, and the order of CEGAT itself does not
refer to the Customs Notification dated 27th October, 1998 which B
. ... was impugned in the present Special Leave Petitions. The
Bench observed that because of the same probably the Court
was led to believe that the appeal had been filed before the
issuance of the notification of determination. Therefore, the notice
was issued in the SLPs. When the matter was heard by a two-
Judge Bench on 5.3.2002, the following order was passed:
c
"It is submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing for the respondents that
against the impugned order of the CEGAT a two Judge
Bench of this Court by order dated May 11, 2000 declined D
to entertain the S.L.Ps. filed by another party. In respect of
" i'
the same impugned order S.L.Ps. Nos.9423-9432/2000
filed by the petitioner, another two Judge Bench by Order
dated August 24, 2000 held that the S.L.Ps. would be
maintainable and ordered notice. In view of this apparent
E
conflict, submits the learned Additional Solicitor General,
the cases may be placed before !'J three Judge Bench. Mr.
Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel and the other
senior counsel also adopted the same submission. Mr. P.
Chidambram, the learned seniors counsel appearing for
the petitioner submits that a writ petition is already filed F
_,l. therefore this question may not be relevant. In view of the
importance of the question involved in these cases we
think that it.would be appropriate to place the cases before
a three Judge Bench. The Registry, is directed to seek
orders from Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and place G
the cases before a three Judge Bench preferably at an
~ early date."
___,
3. The Bench felt that there was conflict in the two orders.
The order dated 11.5.2000, referred to above reads as follows:
.H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R.
j...-·
A "We see no reason whatsoever to entertain these special
leave petitions. It is perfectly clear now that we have seen
the provisions of the Act that the order of the Designated
Authority is purely recommendatory. The appeal that lies
is against the dete!rmination and that determination has to
B be made by the Central Government. For this reason, we
decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Cons- ~
"'
titution of India and dismiss the special leave petitions."
The matter was accordingly referred to a three-Judge
Bench and that is how the matter is posted before us.
c 4. The order dated 24.8.2000 clarified the position as to
why notice was issued notwithstanding the earlier dismissal of
several S.L.Ps. The distinctive feature was challenge to the
Customs Notification dated 27th October, 1998. This aspect was
not apparently noted by the two-Judge Bench when the matter
D was taken up on 11.5.2000. It is also noted in the order dated
24.8.2000 that determination as contemplated by Rule 18 of
the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection
of Anti-Dumping Duty on dumped articles and for determination
of injury) Rules, 1995 (in short 'Rules') has taken place with the
E issuance of the Notification dated 27th October, 1998 and,
therefore, the appeal could be maintainable to CEGAT. The
order dated 24.8.2000 has brought out the clearly distinctive
features. Since the order dated 24.8.2000 reflects the correct
position the SLPs., therefore, were rightly entertained. The
F dismissal of the SLPs. by order dated 11.5.2000 was on
account of the fact that the relevant aspects were not brought to
..l.
the notice of the Bench.
5. That being so, we are of the view that the appeals before
the CEGAT were clearly maintainable when challenge was to
G the determination made is clear from the issuance of the
Notification dated 27th October, 1998.
6. The cases shall be placed before the Bench of two ...__ '
Hon'ble Judges to be dealt with on merits. Ordered accordingly.
H R.P. Matters pending.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "anti‑dumping duty"Sign in to search