Introduction
Date of the Judgment: September 10, 2008
Judges: Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justice B. Sudershan Reddy
When is an imported article considered similar enough to a domestic product to warrant anti-dumping duties? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the interpretation of “like article” under the Customs Tariff Act. The court considered the scope of the term “like article” in the context of anti-dumping duty investigations.
The bench comprised Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justice B. Sudershan Reddy.
Case Background
This case originated from an anti-dumping investigation concerning Acyclic alcohol imports. The Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce, initiated an investigation to determine whether anti-dumping duties should be imposed on these imports.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 31, 2002 | Initiation Notification issued under Rule 5 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. |
| July 29, 2002 | Preliminary Finding given by the Designated Authority. |
| September 5, 2002 | Preliminary Notification issued by the Designated Authority. |
| July 29, 2003 | Final Finding given by the Designated Authority. |
| October 1, 2003 | Final Notification issued under Section 9A(1)(5), imposing anti-dumping duty on different types of Acyclic alcohol. |
| Around September 4, 2007 | The five-year period for the anti-dumping duty ended and was not extended. |
| September 10, 2008 | Date of Supreme Court Judgment. |
Legal Framework
The case concerns the interpretation and application of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, particularly Rule 2(d), which defines “like article.”
Section 9A(1)(5) of the Customs Tariff Act is also relevant, as it pertains to the imposition of anti-dumping duties based on the final findings of the designated authority.
Arguments
The primary legal question was:
“Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the 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) and not on any other ‘like article’.”
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was correct in holding that the 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) and not on any other ‘like article’.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the CESTAT was correct in its interpretation of “like article.” | The Court did not provide a definitive answer. | The Court stated that the Tribunal’s decision needed proper evaluation and consideration, particularly in the context of the connotation to be given to the words “like article” under Rule 2(d) of the said Rules, 1995, but chose to keep the question of law expressly open due to the specific circumstances of the case. |
Authorities
The Court referred to 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, concerning the definition of “like article.”
The Court also mentioned Section 9A(1)(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, related to the imposition of anti-dumping duties.
| Authority | How Considered |
|---|---|
| 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 | The Court noted that the Tribunal’s decision needed proper evaluation and consideration, particularly in the context of the connotation to be given to the words “like article” under this rule. |
| Section 9A(1)(5) of the Customs Tariff Act | The Final Notification was issued under this section, imposing anti-dumping duty on different types of Acyclic alcohol. |
Judgment
| Submission Made by the Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The question of law regarding the interpretation of “like article” under Rule 2(d) of the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995. | The Court acknowledged the importance of the question but chose to keep it expressly open, not providing a definitive answer in this particular case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
The Court considered the connotation to be given to the words “like article” under Rule 2 (d) of the said Rules, 1995. The Court opined that Tribunal’s decision needs proper evaluation and consideration particularly, in the context of the connotation to be given to the words “like article” under Rule 2 (d) of the said Rules, 1995.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court acknowledged the importance of the question of law regarding the interpretation of “like article” but chose to keep it expressly open, not providing a definitive answer in this particular case. The fact that the duty was already paid for five years and not extended seems to have influenced the decision not to interfere.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of Legal Question | 40% |
| Duty Already Paid | 60% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Duty already paid) | 60% |
| Law (Interpretation of “like article”) | 40% |
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court did not provide a definitive interpretation of “like article” in this case, leaving the legal question open for future consideration.
- The decision highlights the importance of proper evaluation and consideration of the definition of “like article” under Rule 2(d) of the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995, in anti-dumping duty cases.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court disposed of the civil appeal without interfering, keeping the question of law regarding the interpretation of “like article” open for future determination. The decision underscores the need for careful consideration of the definition of “like article” in anti-dumping duty investigations.
Category
Parent category: Customs Law
Child categories:
- Anti-dumping Duty
- Customs Tariff Act
- Rule 2(d), Customs Tariff Rules, 1995
FAQ
- What is anti-dumping duty?
Anti-dumping duty is a tariff imposed on imported goods that are priced below fair market value, with the aim of protecting domestic industries from unfair competition.
- What does “like article” mean in the context of anti-dumping duty?
“Like article” refers to goods that are identical or very similar in characteristics and use to the goods being investigated for potential anti-dumping duties. The precise scope of “like article” was the subject of the legal question in this case.
- What was the Supreme Court’s decision in this case?
The Supreme Court chose not to provide a definitive answer to the legal question regarding the interpretation of “like article,” keeping the question open for future cases. The Court disposed of the appeal without interfering, given that the anti-dumping duty had already been paid for the relevant period.