Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DESIGNATED AUTHORITY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY & ANR. versus INDIAN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS LTD.

Decided
27 January 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Matter referred to larger bench

Citations

Official
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 653 · 2009 INSC 76
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The issue before the High Court was with regard to interpretation of Anti Dumping provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (in short the 'Act') and the Custom Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and For Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').

pp. 653–654, margin G

2

The writ petition was allowed primarily relying on Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority and Ors. (2006 ( 10) SCC 368) and the interpretation placed on Section 9A(5) of the Act in the matter and scope of Section 9A(5) of the Act as considered by this Court in Rishiroop Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Designated Authority and Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 303).

p. 654, margin B

3

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the issues are of complex nature and will have wide ramifications on domestic and international business and commerce.

p. 654, margin D

4

We are of the view that the view expressed in Reliance Industries case (supra) needs a fresh look and following questions need to be dealt with by a Larger Bench: (1) Whether the interpretation that Anti Dumping Duty is country specific rather than exporter specific in consonance with the provision of Rules 12, 15, 17(3), 18, 19(3) and Annexure 1 to the Rules. (2) Whether the interpretation placed upon Rule 7 of the Ru es is correct in so far as it diminishes the Rule of confidentiality statutorily provided for under Rule 7.

p. 654, margin E

5

The records be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for necessary orders. D.G. Matter referred to larger Bench.

p. 654, margin G