UNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus M/S MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. & ORS.
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 353, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Directions issued
Segment: Ratio
[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 him to be confidential 
by duly accepting such a claim of any of the parties providing the 
information. But in the garb of unclaimed confidentiality, the DA 
cannot shirk from its responsibility to act fairly in its quasi-judicial 
B 
role and refuse to indicate reasons for its findings. The DA will 
do well to remember not to treat any information as confidential 
unless a claim of confidentiality has been made by any of the 
parties supplying the information. In cases where it is not possible 
to accept a claim of confidentiality, Rule 7 hardly leaves any option 
with the DA but to ignore such confidential information if it is of C 
the view that the information is really not confidential and still 
the concerned party docs not agree to its being made public. In 
such a situation the information cannot be made public but has to 
be simply ignored and treated as 11011 est. [Para 2511371-D-H; 372-
A,B] 
Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority & 
Others (2006) 10 SCC 368: 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 1 -
explained. 
Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Designated Authority, 
D 
Mio Commerce & Others (2006) 10 SCC 386- affirmed. 
E 
Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce and 
Industry & Am: v. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Limited
(2009) 2 SCC 510: 2009 (1) SCR 653; Rishiroop 
Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Designated Authority & Additional 
Secretary (2006) 4 SCC 303: 2006 (3) SCR 252; S.N. 
F 
Mukherjee i~ Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594: 1990 
(1) Suppl. SCR 44 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2009 (1) SCR653 
referred to 
Para 1 
2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 1 
explained 
Para 1 
G 
2006 (3) SCR 252 
referred to 
Para 1 
(2006) 10 sec 386 
affirmed 
Para2 
1990 (1) Suppl. SCR 44 
referred to 
Para2 
H
356 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
(2016) 1 sec 91 
referred to 
Para 11 
1990 (3) SCR 352 
referred to 
Para 15 
(2000) 6 sec 626 
referred to 
Para 21 
(1900) AC 323 
relied on 
Para 22 
B 
1971 (3) SCR 9 
relied on 
Para 22 
1997 (4) Suppl. SCR 327 
relied on 
Para 22 
(1980) 1 All ER 80 
referred to 
Para 22 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1679 
C of2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2009 of the High Court 
of Gujarat in Special Leave Application No. 6881 of2009. 
WITH 
D 
SLP(C) No. 1409912015 
SLP(C) No. 1452412015 
C.A. Nos. 3498-350012004. 
Yashank Adhyaru, Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr. Advs., Raj iv Nanda, 
E R. Balasubramanian, Ms. Rash mi Malhotra, G S. Makker, Arvind Kumar 
Sharma, B. Krishna Prasad, Mahesh Agarwal, Ankur Saigal, Raghav 
Dwivedi, E. C. Agrawala, Ad vs. for the Appellants. 
V. Lakshmikumaran, T. D. Satish, Darpan Bhuyan, Ankur Sharma, 
M. P. Devanath, Jitendra Singh, Prashant Kumar, Saurabh S. Sinha, 
F 
Mis. AP & J Chambers, E. C. Agrawala, Sanjay Sherawat, 
B. Krishna Prasad, Rajesh Kumar, Satyendra Kumar, Mis. Dua 
Associates, Ms. Indra Sawhney, Ms. Kum Kum Sen, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
G 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. I. While hearing special leave petition 
against a judgment of the Delhi High Court, the Division Bench on January 
27, 2009 in the case of Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce 
and Industry & Anr. v. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Limited'
noticed that in the context of interpretation ofanti-dumping provisions of 
1 (2009) 2 sec 510
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. MIS MEGHMANI ORGANICS 
357 
LTD. & ORS. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (in short "the Act") and the Customs Tariff A 
(Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on 
Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (for 
brevity "the Rules"), the Delhi High Court had allowed the writ petition 
mainly by following the judgment of this Court in the case of Reliance 
Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority & Others0 and also by 
B 
following interpretation of Section 9-A(5) given in Rishiroop Polymers 
(P) Ltd. v. Designated Authority & Additional Secretary.' At the 
instance ofcounsel for the petitioners in that case, in paragraph 5 of that 
judgment, the Division Bench recorded its views that Reliance 
Industries case needed a fresh look and two questions needed to be 
dealt with by a larger Bench. Since the first question, as per submissions 
C 
of all the parties is no longer relevant on account of subsequent 
amendment of the Act, we take note of only the other relevant question 
requiring answer by this Bench. The question reads thus: 
"Whether the interpretation placed upon Rule 7 of the Rules 
is correct insofar as it diminishes the rule of confidentiality 
D 
statutorily provided for under Rule 7." 
2. Learned counsels for the rival parties have advanced 
submissions only in relation to the aforesaid question oflaw and not on 
the merits of the matters on an understanding that the matters
shall be 
disposed of by competent Benches in the light of our answer to the 
E 
aforesaid question/issue of law. 
3. At the outset we record that it is the Union of India and the 
Designated Authority who have sought for a relook in respect of 
interpretation of Rule 7 of the Rules as flowing from the case of Reliance 
Industries Ltd. (supra). Mr. YashankAdhyaru, learned senior advocate 
F 
appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 1679of2010 has argued 
that appeal as the lead matter. According to him the view taken in the 
Reliance Industries case whittles down the effect of Rule 7 and unless 
we re-state the law differently, the Designated Authority (hereinafter 
referred to as "the DA") will be forced to disclose materials which are 
otherwise protected by the confidentiality provisions in Rule 7. According 
G 
to learned senior counsel, the Division Bench in Reliance Industries 
case noticed and extracted a passage from the earlier judgment of a co-
ordinate Bench in the case of Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. 
' 12006) 1 o sec 368 
' 12006) 4 sec 303 
H
358 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 9 S.C.R. 
Designated Authority, Mio Commerce & Others• but erred in taking 
a somewhat different view by a misplaced reliance upon the view taken 
by the Constitution Bench in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union oflndia.5 
4. To the contrary, as we shall notice hereinafter, a stand has 
been taken by the counsels appearing for the parties who have made 
complaints of dumping, that Rule 7 has been correctly understood and 
interpreted in Sterlite Industries Ltd. (supra) casting duty upon the 
DA to examine and decide on case to case basis whether information 
supplied is required to be kept confidential or not. The whole of the 
paragraph 3 of that judgment has been highlighted to submit that it is for 
the DA to decide in any relevant situation whether a particular material/ 
information for which confidentiality has been claimed, is required to be 
kept confidential. Of course the Appellate Authority namely CEGAT 
will always have the power to look into the relevant files including the 
materials treated as confidential for deciding the issues raised in appeal. 
5. With a view to place Rule 7 and other relevant rules in their 
correct perspective, we have been taken through Sections 9A, 9B and 
particularly sub-section (2) of Section 9B of the Act. Section 9A clarifies 
as to when an article exported from any country or territory to India at 
less than its normal value may be subjected to an anti-dumping duty not · 
exceeding
the margin of dumping in relation to such article. By the aid of 
explanation, margin of dumping has been clarified as the difference 
between the export price and the nonnal value ofan article. The meaning 
of export price and normal value require some factual investigation to 
find out whether dumping has taken place or not and if yes, what is the 
margin of dumping. Therefore, sub-section (6) of Section 9A not only 
authorizes the Central Government to ascertain and determine after 
necessary enquiry, the margin of dumping but also empowers it to make 
rules for identifying articles liable for anti-dumping duty and forthe manner 
in which the export price, the normal value and the margin of dumping in 
relation to such at1icles need to be determined as v,1ell as for the 
assessment and collection of such anti-dumping duty. Section 9B ( 1) 
states the circumstances and situation when an article shall not be 
subjected to countervailing duty or anti-dumping duty under Sections 9 
and 9A. However, sub-section (2) of Section 9B empowers the Central 
Government to frame the rules under which an investigation may be 
'(2006) I 0 SCC 386 decided on November 25, 2003 
'(1990) 4 sec 594
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. MIS MEGHMANI ORGANICS 
359 
LTD. & ORS. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
made for the purpose of Section 9B to meet exceptional situation 
A 
contemplated by Section 98(1 )(b )(ii). 
6. The Central Government framed and notified the rules on 
01.01.1995 in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (6) of Section 
9A and sub-section (2) of Section 98 of the Act. There is no dispute that 
B 
the Rules are based largely upon an International Agreement on 
implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994 (for brevity "GATT 1994"). Under this Agreement all the 
members including India concurred on the broad principles for applying 
anti-dumping measures only under the circumstances provided for in 
Article VI of GATT 1994 and pursuant to investigation in accordance 
with the provisions of the Agreement. Let us take a bird's eye-view of C 
its relevant Articles. Article 5 of the Agreement contains provisions for 
initiation of investigation and its completion in respect of an alleged 
dumping. The initiation has to be generally upon a written application by 
or on behalf of the domestic industry. In special circumstances the DA 
may initiate an investigation even without a written application provided 
it has sufficient evidence of dumping. A time limit ofone year to eighteen 
months is prescribed for concluding the investigation. Article 6 deals 
with "Evidence" which is generally to be made known to all interested 
parties
except where the information is confidential. Paragraphs 2, 4, 5 
and 8 under Article 6, shown as paragraphs 6.2, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.8 have 
ample connection with the matter at hand and hence they are extracted 
herein below: 
"6.2 Throughout the anti-dumping investigation all interested 
parties shall have a full opportunity forthe defence of their 
interests. To this end, the authorities shall, on request, 
provide opportunities for all interested parties to meet those 
parties with adverse interests, so that opposing views may 
be presented and rebuttal arguments offered. Provision of 
such opportunities must take account of the need to preserve 
confidentiality and of the convenience to the pa11ies. There 
shall be no obligation on any party to attend a meeting, and 
failure to do so shall not be prejudicial to that party's case. 
Interested parties shall also have the right, on justification, 
to present other information orally. 
6.3 xxxxxxxxxxxx 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
360 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
6.4 The authorities shall whenever practicable provide 
timely opportunities for all interested parties to sell all 
information that is relevant to the presentation of their cases: 
that is not confidential as defined in paragraph 5, and that is 
used by the authorities in an anti-dumping investigation, and 
to prepare presentations on the basis of this information. 
6.5 Any information which is by nature confidential (for 
example, because its disclosure would be of significant 
~--competitive advantage to a competitor or because its 
disclosure would have a significantly adverse effect upon a 
person supplying the information or upon a person from 
whom that person acquired the information), or which is 
provided on a confidential basis by parties to an investigation 
shall, upon good cause shown, be treated as such by the 
authorities. Such information shall not be disclosed without 
specific permission of the party submitting it. 
6.5.1 The authorities shall require interested parties providing 
confidential information to furnish non-confidential 
summaries thereof. These summaries shall be in sufficient 
detail to perm'ita reasonable understanding of the substance 
of the information submitted n confidence. In exceptional 
circumstances, such parties may indicate that such 
information is not susceptible of summary. In such 
exceptional circumstances, a statement of the reasons why 
summarization is
not possible must be provided. 
6.5.2 If the authorities find that a request for confidentiality 
is not warranted and if the supplier of the information is 
either unwilling to make the infonnation public or to authorize 
its disclosure in generalized or summary form, the authorities 
may disregard such information unless it can be 
demonstrated to their satisfaction from appropriate sources 
that the information is correct. 
6.6 xxxxxxxxxx 
6.7 xxxxxxxxxx 
6.8 In cases in which any interested party refuses access 
to, or otherwise does not provide, necessary information
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. MIS MEGHMANI ORGANICS 
361 
LTD. & ORS. [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
within a reasonable period or significantly impedes the 
A 
investigation, preliminary and final determinations, 
affirmative or negative, may be made on the basis of the 
facts available. The provisions of Annex II shall be observed 
in the application of this paragraph. 
7. Before adverting to Rule 7 which is of prime significance, it 
B 
will be useful to notice the relevant Rules also. Rule 2 embodies definition 
of various terms such as 'domestic industry', 'interested party' etc. Rules 
3 and 4 relate to appointment of Designated Authority and its duties. 
Rule 5 relates to initiation of investigation. Usually it is done upon a 
written application by or on behalf of the domestic industry but in certain c 
circumstances it may be initiated suo motu by the DA on being satisfied 
from the informatiop received from the Collector of Customs as to the 
existence of certain circumstances. The DA has the duty to notify the 
Government of exporting countries before proceeding to initiate an 
investigation. Rule 6 contains principles governing investigations. It 
includes provisions for issuance of public notice notifying the decision to 
D 
initiate an investigation with adequate informations of specified nature. 
The copy of the public notice is to be given to all known exporters of the 
article involved in the alleged dumping, the Government of exporting 
countries concerned and other
interested parties. Copy of the application 
alleging dumping is also to be made available to all concerned as noted 
above. The DA has power to issue a notice calling for any information in 
E 
the specified form from the exporters, foreign producers and other 
interested parties within a time bound schedule. The DA is required to 
provide opportunity of furnishing relevant information even to the 
industrial users of the article under investigation and to representative 
consumer organizations (in appropriate cases). Rule 6 (7) obligates the 
F 
DA to "make available the evidence presented to it by one interested 
party to the other interested parties, participating in the investigation." 
Rule 7 is as follows: 
"Rule 7. Confidential 
information 
( 1) 
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rules (2), (3) and 
G 
(7) of rule 6, sub-rule (2) of rule 12, sub-rule ( 4) ofrule 15 
and sub-rule (4) of rule 17, the copies of applications 
received under sub-rule ( 1) of rule 5, or any other infonnation 
provided to the designated authority on a confidential basis 
by any party in the course of investigation, shall, upon the 
H
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
designated authority being satisfied as to its confidentiality, 
be treated as such by it and no such information shall be 
disclosed to any other party without specific authorization 
of the party providing such information. 
2. The designated authority may require the parties providing 
B 
information on confidential basis to furnish non-confidential 
summary thereof and if, in the opinion of a party providing 
such information, such information is not susceptible of 
summary, such party may submit to the designated authority 
a statement of reasons why summarization is not possible. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
0 
H 
3. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), if 
the designated authority is satisfied that the request for 
confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the 
information is either unwilling to make the infonnation public 
or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary 
form, it may disregard such information." 
8. Only to complete the bird's eye view of the Rules, it may be 
noted that as per Rule 8 the DA has to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of 
the information supplied by the interested parties if findings are based 
upon such information. Rule I 2 contains details as to how preliminary 
findings are to be arrived at and a public notice to be issued of such 
preliminary findings. Provisional duty may be levied on the basis of 
preliminary findings, by the Central Government, as empowered by
Rule 
13. Rule 17 is similar to Rule 12 but deals with the final findings which 
have to be arrived at normally within one year of investigation and in 
exceptional cases within further period of six months provided the Central 
Government grants the extension. The DA is required to issue public 
notice of its final findings also. Rules 13 and 18 whcreunder the Central 
Government is empowered to levy provisional duty on the basis of 
preliminary findings or duties as per final findings, as the case may be, 
demonstrate that the findings of the DA recorded after investigation are 
of immense significance though they look recommendatory in nature. 
Therefore, the investigation is required to be carried on in a fair manner 
by issuance of public notice at relevant stages and after informing all 
interested parties so that they may also have their say. The Central 
Government appears to have a discretion in the matter of determining 
the quantum of provisional duty as well as final duty but with a clear
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. MIS MEGHMANI ORGANICS 
363 
LTD. & ORS. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
limitation that anti-dumping duty cannot exceed the margin of dumping 
A 
as determined by the DA. 
9. Since Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, learned senior advocate for the 
Union of India has based his criticism of the judgment in Reliance 
Industries on the basis of observations in paragraph 43 of that judgment, 
the same is reproduced hereinbelow: 
"43. In our opinion, Rule 7 does not contemplate any right 
in the DA to claim confidentiality, Rule 7 specifically 
provides that the right of'confidentiality is restricted to the 
party who has supplied the information, and that party has 
also to satisfy the DA that the matter is really confidential. 
Nowhere in the rule has it been provided that the DA has 
the right to claim confidentiality, particularly regarding 
information which pertains to the party which has supplied 
the same. In the present case, the DA failed to provide the 
detailed costing information to the appellant on the basis of 
which it computed NIP, even though the appellant was the 
sole producer of the product under consideration, in the 
country. In our opinion this was clearly illegal, and not 
contemplated by Rule 7." 
10. Elaborating his points further, learned senior counsel for the 
Union oflndia submitted that the very opening sentence of above quoted 
para 43 lays down an incorrect proposition of law that Rule 7 does not 
permit the DA to claim confidentiality and
that right to make such a 
claim is vested only in a party who has supplied the particular information. 
The use of the term 'any party' in the opening sentence of Ru le 7( I) in 
place of the expression 'interested party', according to learned counsel, 
indicates that the DA may receive in course of his suo motu action 
certain confidential informations and in such a situation ifhe is satisfied 
that the confidentiality of such information needs to be protected and 
should not be disclosed to any other party without specific authorisation, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the DA may be justified in his action whereby he himself claims 
confidentiality in appropriate cases without any party exercising the right 
G 
of confidentiality. 
11. To buttress his aforesaid stand learned senior counsel placed 
emphasis upon Articles 6.2 and 6.5 ofGATT 1994. By placing reliance 
upon paragraph 23 of the judgment in the case of Commissioner of 
H
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 9 S.C.R. 
A ·Customs, Bangalore v. GM. Exports6 he submitted that in the light 
of Article 51 (c) of the Constitution oflndia, in a situation where India is 
a signatory to an international Treaty or Agreement and a statute is 
made to enforce a treaty obligation, then in case of any difference 
between the language of such statute and a corresponding provision of 
B the Treaty, the statutory language should be interpreted in the same sense 
as the language of the Treaty. In abstract the proposition is salutary and 
needs no caveat. Articles 6.2 and 6.5 have already been extracted earlier. 
In essence, Rules 6 and 7 of the Rules ensure the obligations flowing 
from Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5. While interested parties are entitled to 
c 
have full opportunity to defend their interests, such opportunities need to 
be he9ged by the need to maintain confidentiality. Informations other 
than confidential must be shown to all interested parties whenever 
practicable in terms of Article 6.4. Any information which is by nature 
confidential or which is provided on a confidential basis is required to be 
treated as confidential by the authorities but only on being satisfied by 
D good cause shown for the confidentiality claimed. No doubt the opening 
clause of Article 6.5 covers any information which is by nature confidential 
but the examples indicated therein clearly reveal that such information is 
required to be kept confidential because if
revealed it would give 
significant advantage to a competitor or would have significant adverse 
E 
F 
effect upon the person supplying the information or his resource person 
from whom he acquired the information. The submission that DA is 
entitled to presume such effects without any claim being made by the 
party supplying the information is, however, not acceptable for reasons 
more than one. The examples are clearly meant to be only a guiding 
factor for the DA who cannot by exercise of discretion presume 
confidentiality and thereby restrict the rights of the interested parties to 
see relevant informations that may be used by the DA for the 
investigation. The DA, being a statutory investigator, cannot assume for 
himself the role ofa party for the purpose of Rule 7 and to claim as well 
as accept on information to be confidential. 
12. The other reason is provision of appeal under Section 9C of 
G the Act. The appeal provided is against the order of determination or 
review thereof regarding the existence, degree and effect of any subsidy 
or dumping in relation to import of any article. It is one thing to use 
confidential information for the purpose of investigation on account of 
statutory provisions and not communicating the same. It is quite another, 
H 
, (2016) 1 sec 91
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. M/S MEGHMANI ORGANICS 
365 
LTD. & ORS. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
not to maintain transparent records of reasons as to why claim of A 
confidentiality made by any party has been accepted by the DA. Where 
appeal is provided, the appellate authority will definitely be entitled to 
look into the records including the confidential information as well as 
into the correctness of the decision for accepting a claim of confidentiality. 
The situation is similar to one under the administrative law where a 
B 
policy may exempt the authority from requirement of communicating its 
reasons for an administrative decision/order affecting rights and interests 
of parties but certainly reasons must exist in the records so as to justify 
the reasonableness and fairness of the decision ifit has adverse effects 
upon any party. Any court or tribunal exercisingjudicial review is entitled 
to call for the records to satisfy itself as to the existence of reasons in 
C 
appropriate cases involving a challenge to such order. In case the DA is 
conceded power to gather informations from sources other than 
interested parties, he must not treat such information as confidential 
unless the party which has supplied the information makes a request to 
keep the infonnation confidential. Even in such a situation where an 
D 
uninterested party claims confidentiality in respect of infornmtion supplied, 
as per Rule 7, the DA has to take all necessary precautions to decide the
genuineness of such claim. In appropriate cases he must ask for summary 
of the information and ifthat is also not possible, the reasons as to why 
it is not possible should be supplied for scrutiny. The reasons of 
confidentiality must be discernible on scrutiny of records by the appellate 
E 
authority because of mandate of Rule 7(3) that if the claim of 
confidentiality is not worthy of acceptance, or the supplier of the 
infonnation is unwilling to make the infonnation public without any good 
reasons, the DA has to disregard such information. 
13. The aforesaid discussion leads to the conclusion that even the 
F 
relevant provisions in the GATT 1994 relied upon on behalf of appellant 
do not require the interpretation of Rule 7 in the manner sought for on 
behalf of the Union of India or the DA. 
14. Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned senior advocate appearing 
for the petitioner - Moser Baer India Ltd. - in one of the SLPs has 
G 
taken pains to refer to various paragraphs of the judgment in the case of 
Reliance Industries to submit that the said judgment was rendered in 
an entirely different context which did not involve detailed discussion of 
Rule 7. On the basis of para 23 of the judgment it was shown that the 
two main issues falling for detennination were-( I) the correct principles 
H
366 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
for determination of Non Injurious Price (NIP) of PTA, and (2) the 
scope of Rule 7 of the Rules. Referring to para 37 of the judgment, he 
pointed out that the Court had directed for revising NIP by taking the 
market price of electricity and the actual capacity utilisation during the 
period of investigation. Since the DA in that case had refused to disclose 
its findings even to the person who had supplied the information leading 
to such findings, the court observed thus : "Further, the DA should be 
directed not to misuse Rule 7, by keeping confidential its findings and 
that too from the person who has supplied the information to it." In para 
39 it was held that the proceedings before the DA are quasi judicial. 
Then came a reiteration in para 41 in the following words : 
"41. The DA claimed confidentiality from the appellant about 
its finding on the data supplied by the appellant itself. In 
our opinion, there was nothing confidential in the matter, 
and hence reasons for not accepting the appellant's version 
should have been stated in the order of the DA." 
Para 43 has already been extracted earlier. 
15. Looking at the contents of Rule 7 and the facts and issues 
involved in Reliance Industries case, we agree with the submissions 
of Mr. Patil that fact situation in that case was entirely different and the 
Court was not examining the provisions of Rule 7 in any detail but made 
rather scathing
observations against the DA because the DA claimed 
confidentiality not in respect of any information but in respect of its 
findings based upon information supplied by the same party who was 
aggrieved by non-supply of the findings. The observations in Reliance 
Industries case must be understood in the fact situation of that case in 
view of well established proposition of law that the ratio decidendi 
consists in the reasons formulated by the court for resolving an issue 
arising for determination and not in what may logically appear to flow 
from observations on non issues. Reference in this regard may be made 
to law enunciated on this point by a Constitution Bench, in paragraph 20 
of the judgment in the case of Krishena Kumar v. Union of India & 
Ors.7 In the given facts, the observations in paragraph 43 in the case of 
Reliance Industries are fully justified and do not require any review. 
We are in agreement that Rule 7 does not postulate that the DA can 
claim confidentiality and thattoo not in respectofany information supplied 
by a party but in respect of its reasons or findings derived from information 
1 (1990) 4 sec 201
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. M/S MEGHMANI ORGANICS 
367 
LTD. & ORS. [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
supplied by the same very party. 
A 
16. We find no conflict between the view taken in Reliance 
Industries case and that in Sterlite Industries, particularly in paragraph 
3, which has been extracted in Reliance Industries case and reads as 
follows: 
"3. In our view, it is not necessary for us to go into the 
merits of this matter as we propose to send the matter back 
to CEGAT after laying down certain guidelines. From what 
has been argued before us, it appears that in pursuance of 
Rule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment 
and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles 
and for Detennination oflnjury) Rules, 1995, the Designated 
Authority is treating all material submitted to it as confidential 
merely on a party asking that it be treated confidential. In 
our view, that is not the purport of Rule 7. Under Rule 7, 
the Designated Authority has to be satisfied as to the 
confidentiality of that material. Even if the material is 
confidential the Designated Authority has to ask the parties 
providing infonnation, on confidential basis, to furnish a non-
confidential summary thereof. If such a statement is not 
being furnished then that party should submit to the 
Designated Authority a statement of reasons why 
summarization is not possible. In any event, under Rule 7(3) 
the Designated Authority can come to the conclusion that 
confidentiality is not
warranted and it may, in certain cases, 
disregard that information. It must be remembered that not 
making relevant material available to the other side 
affects the other side as they get handicapped in filing 
an effective appeal. Therefore, confidentiality under Rule 
7 is not something which must be automatically assumed. 
Of course in such cases there is need for confidentiality as 
otherwise trade competitors would obtain confidential 
information, which they cannot otherwise get. But whether 
information supplied is required to be kept confidential has 
to be considered on a case-to-case basis. It is for the 
Designated Authority to decide whether a pai1icular material 
is required to be kept confidential. Even where 
confidentiality is required it will always be open for the 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
368 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellate Authority, namely, CEGATto look into the relevant 
files." 
17. The concern shown by the Court in the above quoted paragraph 
as regards the ill-effect of being too liberal in accepting claims of 
confidentiality has been echoed in the same vein in paragraph 45 of the 
B 
Reliance Industries case in following words: 
"45. In our opinion, excessive and unwarranted claim of 
confidentiality defeats the right to appeal. In the absence 
of knowledge of the consequences, grounds, reasoning and 
methodology by which the DA has arrived at its decision 
C 
and made its recommendation, the parties to the proceedings 
cannot effectively exercise their right to appeal either before 
the Tribunal or this Court. This is contrary to the view taken 
by the Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee 
case." 
D 
18. Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran appearing for some of the respondents 
such as SanDisk International Ltd. has highlighted particular facts of his 
case. According to him anti-dumping investigation was initiated against 
SanDisk on the petition of sole domestic prodµcer Moser Baer India 
Limited against imports ofUSB Flash Drives exported from China PR, 
Taiwan and Republic of Korea during the period of investigation, calendar 
E year 2012. According to him SanDisk duly participated in the investigation, 
filed objections, comments and submissions and co-operated at every 
stage of the investigation. His main grievance is
that when the reliability 
of import volume provided by Moser Baer came under question, the DA 
claimed to have used transaction-wise import data provided by 
F 
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) 
for arriving at import volume of the subject goods. He has submitted that 
the DA wrongly treated the import data provided by DGCI&S as 
confidential and in any case erred in not accepting the request of the 
SanDisk to furnish the import data after deleting the names of exporters/ 
importers concerned, for verifying the veracity of the volume of imports. 
G According to him the essence ofinvestigation lies in finding out the correct 
import volume of a particular product under investigation. The DA 
disregarded the past practice of disclosing such details, especially when 
SanDisk was prepared for deletion of names of exporters and importers 
from the import data obtained by th~ DA. 
H
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. M/S MEGHMANI ORGANICS 
369 
LTD. & ORS. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
19. Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran has in his written notes given two 
A 
instances, one of2007 and another of2014 where the DA had disclosed 
the DGCI&S import data to exporters and importers and had called for 
comments. According to him DGCI&S had not claimed confidentiality 
in such matters for good reasons because the concerned Director General 
of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics under the Ministry of B 
Commerce, Government oflndia is covered under Right to Information 
Act and its data is therefore part of official record and lies in public 
domain. According to him DA is a quasi-judicial authority who must 
keep in mind that Rule 7 is an exception to rules of natural justice and 
hence DA can accept a claim of confidentiality only when it is raised by 
the information provider and such claim is found acceptable after due 
C 
scrutiny. 
20. Since we are not entering into arena of facts for deciding 
individual cases, it is not relevant to go deeper into the facts highlighted 
on behalf ofM/s SanDisk International Limited. However, the submission 
that data available with DGCI&S is available to the public and also under 
D 
the RTI Act has not been rebutted in reply. 
21. Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran has referred to and relied upon 
judgment of this Court in Designated Authority (Anti-Dumping 
Directorate), Ministry of Commerce v. Baldor Topsoe A/S8 to 
highlight that in the scheme of the
Act and the Rules, in paragraph 25 of E 
that judgment this Court considered the proviso to Rule 17 which 
empowers the Central Government to extend the time for publication of 
final finding by the DA by further six months and repelled the submission 
that while granting extension of time, the Central Government is obliged 
to afford opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned with the 
investigation. The Court held that in the course of investigation the 
principles of natural justice would have limited application only to the 
extent indicated in the statute, because elaborate provisions for the same 
are already provided for. In our view this judgment helps the respondents 
only to a limited extent that general principles of natural justice need not 
F 
be imported to govern each and every step during the investigation 
G 
proceedings. 
22. We are in respectful agreement with the above view and also 
with the submission that the source of power in the DA to treat an 
information as confidential must be within the confines of Rule 7. The 
• <2000) 6 sec 626 
H
370 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
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. Ifthe submission advanced on behalf 
of Union oflndia and DA are accepted, one will have to adopt a purposive 
liberal interpretation so as to enlarge the scope of this Rule. That does 
not appear to be the intention of the statute makers nor it is warranted 
by the context. The effect of Rule 7 is clear. It permits an exception to 
the principles of natural justice. In such a situation, even ifthere had 
been some ambiguity and requirement ofresortingto interpretation, the 
proper course would be to adopt a construction which would least offend 
our sense of justice, as discussed and enunciated in the cases of Simms 
v. Registrar of Probates9, Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia v. Union 
of lndia 10 and Union of India v. B. S. Agarwal. 11 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", as 
propounded in Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Rossminster 
Ltd.12 . However, in our view, as already indicated, there
are no 
ambiguities in Rule 7 to require departure from the rule of Literal 
Construction. 
23. Mr. Lakshmikumaran also referred to judgment in the case of 
Reliance Industries to point out that main issue in that case was decided 
in favour of Reliance Industries in paragraphs 35, 36 & 37 holding 
that the Non-Injurious Price (NIP) had been determined wrongly and 
therefore needed to be revised by taking the market price of electricity 
and the actual capacity utilization during the period of investigation. 
Thereafter the Colll1 simply condemned the approach of the DA in not 
disclosing even the reasons for its erroneous decision to reduce the cost 
price of electricity supplied by the appellant from its captive power plant. 
When the data had been supplied by the appellant itself, the Court rightly 
felt disturbed by the act of DA in claiming confidentiality about its findings. 
G 
In view of proceedings being quasi-judicial, the DA was rightly held duty 
bound to disclose its reasons for not accepting the version given by the 
9 (1900) AC 323 
"'(1971) I SCC85 
11 (1997) s sec 89 
H 
12 ( 1980) I All ER 80
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. M/S MEGHMANI ORGANICS 
LTD. & ORS. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.] 
appellant. Finally Mr. Lakshmikumaran submitted that the observations 
given by the Court in Reliance Industries case do not require any 
interference and the appeals filed on behalf of the Union of India and 
the DA should be dismissed. 
24. Mr. Jitendra Singh, advocate, appearing for Meghmani 
Organics Ltd. in the lead case, reiterated the submissions noted earlier. 
According to his submissions also there is no conflict between law laid 
down in Sterlite Industries case and in Reliance Industries case. 
He also submitted that in fact the appeal against Meghmani Organics 
Ltd. has also become infructuous. However, we refrain to decide the 
matter on facts even to the extent whether the appeal has become 
infructuous or not. 
25. In the light of facts and submissions noted earlier as well as 
conclusions already recorded at various places, we are of the considered 
view that the question referred for our answer 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 infonnation 
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 Sterlitc Industries case also has 
our respectful concurrence. But at the same time, we reiterate that the 
Reliance Industries case does not adversely affect or run counter to 
the law spelt out in Sterlite Industries case. We may only explain here 
that while dealing with objections or the case of the concerned parties, 
the DA must not disclose the information which are already held by him 
to be confidential by duly accepting such a claim of any of the parties 
providing the information. While taking precautions not to disclose the 
sensitive confidential informations, the DA can, by adopting a sensible 
approach indicate reasons on major issues so that paiiies may in general 
terms have the knowledge as to why their case or objection has not 
been accepted in preference to a rival claim. But in the garb ofunclaimed 
confidentiality, the DA cannot shirk from its responsibility to act fairly in 
its quasi-judicial role and refuse to indicate reasons for its findings. The 
DA wi II do well to remember not to treat any information as confidential 
371 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
372 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
unless a claim of confidentiality has been made by any of the parties 
supplying the infonnation. In cases where it is not possible to accept a 
claim of confidentiality, Rule 7 hardly leaves any option with the DA but 
to ignore such confidential infonnation if it is of the view that the 
infonnation is really not confidential and still the concerned party does 
B 
c 
not agree to its being made public. In such a situation the information 
cannot be made public but has to be simply ignored and treated as non 
est. 
26. Having answered the question thus, we direct the cases to be 
posted before appropriate Bench for disposal on merits and in the light 
of our answer to the question referred and considered. 
Ankit Gyan 
Referred question answered.