IMPORTANT POINT
When Bench differs with opinion of a co-ordinate Bench, matter should be referred to a larger Bench.

Judgment :

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.

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, 1875 (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).

2. Thewrit 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 & Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 303).

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.

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 Rules is correct in so far as it diminishes the Rules of confidentiality statutorily provided for under Rule 7.

5. The records be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice of India for necessary orders.