UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus M/S MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 353 · Decided: 07-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 9 S.C.R. 353 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
v. 
M/S MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1679 of2010) 
OCTOBER 07, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH AND 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Anti Dumping: 
A 
B 
Customs Tariffs (Identification, Assessment and Collection of C 
Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of 
Injury) Rules, 1995 - r. 7 - Interpretation of - Plea of Union of 
India and Designated Authority that the Reliance Industries case 
diminishes the rule of confidentiality statutorily provided under r. 7 
- Held: Ordinary meaning of the words used in r. 7 are clear and 
there is no requirement to depart from the golden rule of D 
interpretation i.e., the rule of Literal Construction - Reliance 
Industries case did not go into the details of the relevant Rules 
including r. 7 - Observations made therein in respect of rule of 
confidentiality as spelt out in r. 7 does not diminish the scope of r. 7 
as provided - Further, reasons or findings of Designated Authority 
E 
cannot be equated with the information supplied by a party claiming 
confidentiality in respect thereto - Hence, r. 7 does not empower the 
DA to claim any confidentiality in respect of reasons for its finding 
given against a party - Customs Tariff Act,1975 - ss.9A, 9B -
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 - Arts. V. VI - Treaties 
- Interpretation of Statutes. 
F 
Answering the question referred, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is correct to submit that the source of power 
in the Designated Authority to treat an information as confidential 
must be within the confines of Rule 7 of Customs Tariffs 
(Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty G 
on Dumped Articles and for Determination oflnjury) Rules, 1995. 
The ordinary meaning of the words used in this Rule are clear 
and hence there is no requirement to -depart from the golden 
rule of interpretation i.e, the rule of Literal Construction. The 
H 
353 
354 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
effect of Rule 7 is clear. It permits an exception to the principles 
of natural justice. In such a situation, even if there had been some 
ambiguity and requirement of resorting to interpretation, the 
proper course would be to adopt a construction which would least 
offend our sense of justice. It will be useful to remember that 
when two competing public interests are involved, like in the 
present case, one is to supply all relevant informations to the 
parties concerned and the other not to disclose informations 
which are held to be confidential, the proper course of action 
would be to lean in favour of the construction "that is least 
restrictive of individual's rights". However, there are no 
ambiguities in Rule 7 to require departure from the rule of Literal 
Construction. [Para 22)(369-H; 370-A-E] 
Simms v. Registrar of Probates (1900) AC 323; Madhav 
Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 
85: 1971 (3) SCR 9; Union of India v. B. S. Agar11'al 
(1997) 8 SCC 89: 1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 327 - relied 
on. 
In land Revenue Commissioner v. Rossminster Ltd. 
(1980) 1 All ER 80; Designated Authority (Anti-
Dumping Directorate), Ministry of Commerce " Haldor 
E 
Topsoe AIS (2000) 6 SCC 626; Commissioner of 
Customs, Bangalore v. GM Exports (2016) 1 SCC 91; 
Krishena Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 
207: 1990 (3) SCR 352 - referred to. 
2. In the light of facts and submissions, the question 
F 
referred can be answered in a very straight forward manner by 
holding that Reliance Industries case did not go into the details 
of the relevant Rules including Rule 7 but the observations made 
therein in respect of rule of confidentiality as spelt out in Rule 7 
of the Rules does not diminish the scope of Rule 7 as provided. 
The reasons or findings cannot be equated with the information 
G supplied by a party claiming confidentiality in respect thereto. 
Hence, Rule 7 does not empower the DA to claim any 
confidentiality in respect of reasons for its finding given against a 
party. The law laid down in respect of rule of confidentiality in 
Sterlite Industries case is affirmed. Also, the Reliance Industries 
H 
case does not adversely affect or run counter to the law spelt out 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. M/S MEGHMANLORGANICS 
355 
LTD. & ORS. 
in Sterlite Industries case. Further, while dealing with objections A 
or the case of the concerned parties, the DA must not disclose 
the information which are already held by h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.