TATA CHEMICALS LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 24-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Directions issued
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 320 
TATA CHEMICALS LTD. 
v: 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9423-9432 of 2000) 
MARCH 24, 2008 
(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 
E 
dismissal of the SLPs by order dated 11.5.2000 was on 
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,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.