STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.versusDESIGNATED AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF ANTI-DUMPING & ALLIED DUTIES & ORS.

                               . \. \
                            [2017] 6 S.C.R. 598


A                   STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.
                                        v.
      DESIGNATED AUTHORITY, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF
           ANTI-DUMPING & ALLIED DUTIES & ORS.
B                      (Civil Appeal No. 241 of20l7)
                               APRIL 17, 2017
           [RANJAN GOGOi AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
          Customs Act, 1962:
C          s. J30E(b) - Appellate jurisdiction under, of Supreme Court -
    Conditions to be satisfied for exercise of - Appellant, steel
    manufacturer used graphite electrodes which it imported from
    China - Union of India on the basis of final report of Designated
    Authority acting under the 1995 Rules, issued a notification imposing
D anti-dumping duty on import of graphite electrodes from specific
    importers operating within China - Notification challenged by
    appellant before appellate tribunal (CESTAT) - Tribunal dismissed
    the challenge - On appeal, held: None of the parameters on the
    basis of which an appeal is to be admitted by Supreme Court u/
    s. J30E(b) are satisfied in the present case - Findings recorded by
E the appellate tribunal are findings of fact arrived at, on due
    consideration of all relevant materials on record - Further, as per
  · ratio of decision of Supreme Court in Swastic Woollen case, no
    occasion to have a re-look into the matter in exercise of Supreme
    Court's appellate jurisdiction u/s.J 30E(b) - Appeal not admitted -
F Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-
    Dumpting Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury)
    Rules, 1995.
        s.J 30E(b) - Appellate power under. of Supreme Court -
  Limitation upon - If any Held: Section 130E(b) provides for a direct
  appeal to Supreme Court against an order of appellate tribunal, on
G a question involving government revenue - The order that would
  be under appeal may go beyond the inter se dispute between the
  parties and would have effect upon a large number of assesses and
  thus surely will be one of generql/public importance - Therefore ..
  the question raised or arising may require interpretation of the
H
                                598
   STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. DESIGNATED AUTf!:ORITY,                599
          DIRECTORATE GEN. OF ANTI-DUMPING

provisions of the Constitution - It is only such questions of A
importance, alone, that are required to be decided by Supreme
Court - This is the limitation that is inbuilt in s. J30E(b), though it
omits to specifically mention any such limitation, which would also
be consistent with the role and jurisdiction of Supreme Court as
envisaged under the Constitution.
                                                                      B
      s.130E(a) and 130E(b) -Appellate power under, of Supreme
Court - If any difference - Held: Appellate power of Supreme Court
u/s.130E(b) against the order of appellate tribunal should not be
construed in a manner different from contours of appellate power
uls.130E(a) against the order of High Court.
                                                                      c
       s. l 30F - Whether the provisions of s. J 30F would be
applicable to appeals filed before Supreme Court- against orders
of the High Court as well as against orders of the appellate tribunal-
Held: The language used by legislature in s.l 30F prescribing the
con(f)urs of the jurisdiction of Supreme Court while hearing appeals
either against the decision ofHigh Court in its appellate or reference D
jurisdiction or while hearing an appeal against the order of
appellate tribunal is same - Section J30F, would therefore be
applicable to both sets of appeals filed before Supreme Court.
      Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                                      E
      HELD: 1.1 Before admitting an appeal under Section
130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) the following
conditions must be satisfied: ·
      .(i) The question raised or arising must have a direct and/or
proximate nexus to the question of determination of the applicable    F
rate of duty or to the determination of the value of the goods for
the purposes of assessment of duty. This is a sine qua non for the
admission of the appeal before this Court under Section 130E(b)
of the Act.
      (ii) The question ra~sed must involve a substantial question . G
oflaw which has not been answered or, on which, there is a conflict
of decisions necessitating a resolution.
      (iii) If the tribunal, on consideration of the material and
relevant facts, had arrived at a conclusion which is a possible
                                                                      H
600            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A     conclusion, the same must be allowed to rest even if this Court
      is inclined to take another view of the matter.
             (iv) The tribunal had acted in gross violation of the
      procedure or principles of natural justice occasioning a failure of
      justice. [Para 19) [613-D-H]
B
            1.2 The above parameters, however, should by no means
      be considered to be exhaustive. In the instant case the findings
      recorded by the appellate tribunal on the basis of which the appeal
      of the appellant was dismissed are findings of fact arrived at on
      due consideration of all relevant materials on record. If that is
c     so, on the ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Swastic
      Woollen there is no occasion to have a re-look into the matter in
      the exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 130E(b) of
      the Act. [Paras 20, 24) [614-A; 615-D]
            Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Swastic Woollen (P)
D           Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1988 SC 2176: [1988) Suppl. SCR
            370 - relied on.
            2.1 Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution contains the
      provisions in Articles 132, 133, 134 and 134A which contemplate
      appeals to the Supreme Court from any judgment or decree or
 E
      final order of the High Court in exercise of its civil, criminal or
      any other jurisdiction provided the High Court certifies that the
      case involves (i) a substantial question of law as to the
      interpretation of the Constitution, (ii) a substantial question of
      law of general importance which in the opinion of the High Court
 F    needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. Chapter IV of Part V
      of the Constitution expressly limits the appellate jurisdiction of
      the Supreme Court to what has been noticed aforesaid. [Paras
      15, 16] [610-G-H]
            2.2 While construing the extent of the appellate jurisdiction
 G    to be exercised by the Supreme co·urt under a statutory
      enactment, the role of the Supreme Court as envisaged by the
      Constitution cannot altogether be lost sight of particularly when
      different statutes like the Electricity Act, 2003; Companies Act
      2013, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Telecom Regulatory
H
   STEELAUTHORITY OF INDIA v. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY,                      601
          DIRECTORATE GEN. OF ANTI-DUMPING

Authority oflndia Act, 1997, by way of illustration, expressly limit A
the appellate power of the Supreme Court to determination of
substantial questions of law (Section 100 CPC). The position
should be no different in construing the provisions of Section
130E(b) of the Act though it omits to specifically mention any
such limitation. [Para 16) [611-D-E)
                                                                     B
      2.3 Section 130E(b) of the Act provides for a direct appeal
to the Supreme Court against an Order of the appellate tribunal
on a question involving government revenue. This seems to be
in view of the fact that the order that would be under appeal i.e.
(order of the appellate tribunal) may go beyond the inter se dispute
between the parties and effect upon a large number of assessees. c
The issue, in such an event, surely will be one of general/public
importance. Alternatively, the question raised or arising may
require interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution. Such
interpretation may involve a fresh or a relook or even an attempt
to understand the true and correct purport of a laid down meaning D
of the Constitutional provisions that may come into focus in a
given case. It is only such questions of importance, alone, that
are required to be decided by the Supreme Court and by the
very nature of the questions raised or arising, the same necessarily
have to involve issues of law going beyond the inter partes rights
and extending to a class or category of assessees as a whole. E
This is the limitation that has to be understood to be inbuilt in
Section 130E(b) of the Act which would also be consistent with
the role and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India as
envisaged under the Constitution. Viewed from the aforesaid
perspective, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section F
130E(b) of the Act or the pari materia provisions of any other
Statute would be in harmony with those contained in Chapter IV
of Part V of the Constitution. [Para 17) J611-F-H; 612-A-B]
      3.1 The history of the customs duty regime would go to
show that after constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, the              G
proceedings of which were/are deemed under the Act to be judicial
proceedings, the duty of determining the correctness of questions
relating to rate of duty or classification of goods has been primarily
cast by the Act on the Tribunal. The Reference jurisdiction of the

                                                                         H
602          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A High Court up to the time of the amendment made in the year
  2003 and the Appellate jurisdiction of the High Court thereafter
  is in respect of questions not relatable to the rate of duty or
  classification of goods. An appeal also lies to the Supreme Court
  against the order or the judgment of the High Court either in
B exercise of the appellate or reference jurisdiction [Section
  130E(a)]. At the same time, a direct appeal lies to the Supreme
  Court against an order passed by the appellate tribunal relating
  to the question of duty or classification of goods [Section 130E(b)].
  Section 130F has weathered all amendments and made the
  provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to an appeal
C to the Supreme Court applicable to appeals under Section 130 of
  the Act. [Para 12) (609-C-F)
         3.2 The language used by the legislature in Section 130F of
  the Act prescribing the contours of the jurisdiction of the Supreme
  Court while hearing appeals either against the decision of the
D High Court in its appellate or reference jurisdiction or while
  hearing an appeal against the order of the appellate tribunal has
  been same and has remained unchanged throughout the
  legislative history of Chapter XV of the Act (dealing with appeals)
  commencing with the amendment brought about by the Finance
E Act of 1980. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code 1908
  relating to appeals to the Supreme Court from a decree of a High
  Court, as far as may be, has been made applicable to all appeals
  to the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Act. Section
  130F of the Act, all along, has dealt with both sets of appeals that
  would lie to the Supreme Court, namely, against an order of the
F High Court in exercise of its appellate or reference jurisdiction,
  as the case may be, or against the order of the appellate tribunal.
  If that be so, there is no reason why the appellate power of the
  Supreme Court under Section 130E(b) against the order of the
  appellate tribunal should be construed in a manner different from
G the contours of the appellate power under Section 130E(a) against
  the order of the High Court. [Para 13) (609-G-H; 610-A-C)
          Navin Chemicals Mfg. and Trading Co. Ltd. v. Collector
          of Customs (1993) 4 SCC 320 : (1993) 2 Suppl. SCR
          326 - relied on.
 H
   STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY,                         603
          DIRECTORATE GEN. OF ANTI-DUMPING]

       Madras Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr.                     A
       (2014) 10 SCC 1 : [2014] 10 SCR 1 - referred to.

                        Case Law Reference

[2014] 10 SCR 1                   referred to              Para9'
                                                                             B
[1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 326           relied on                Para 18

[1988] Suppl. SCR 370             relied on                Para 18

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 241 of
2017                                                                         c
      From the Judgment and Order No. AD/A/53383/2016-CU[DB]
dated 06.09.2016 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Appeal No. AD/52310/2015.
      Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv., Sunil Kumar Jain, PawanshreeAgrawal,        D
Akarsh Garg, Ms. Chetna Rai, Kaushik Choudhary, Advs. for the
Appellant.
       The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       RANJAN GOGOi, J. l. Order on the admission of this appeal
has been kept pending to enable the Court to ascertain the true sweep        E
and purport of the appellate power of this Court under Section l 30E(b)of
the Customs Act, 1962 (as amended). The language of the above provision
of the Act having indicated a very. broad and expansive appellate
jurisdiction, the precise contours thereof were felt necessary to be         F
determined and the admissibility of the present appeal tested on the
aforesaid basis.
      2. It may be worthwhile at the very outset to delve into the history
of the taxation regime under the Act to notice the changes that had
occurred from time to time.                                                  G
      3. Against the assessment of customs duty made by different
assessing authorities under the Act, viz., Deputy Collector of Customs/
Collector of Customs, initially, an executive appellate remedy before
the Collector of Customs and before the Central Board of Customs
                                                                             H
604            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2017] 6 S.C.R.



A     Excise and Customs, depending on the authority which has passed the
      initial order of assessment, was provided. There was a power of suo
      motu revision with the Board as well as a revisional jurisdiction to be
      exercised on an application by an aggrieved person. The Central
      Government under Section 131 (originally enacted) and under Section
B      129DD (Substituted by Act 21of1984) was also vested with arevisional
      jurisdiction.
           4. By the Finance Act No.2 of 1980, a quasi- judicial authority,
   namely, Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT)
   was constituted to hear appeals against orders of the Collector as well
   as the orders of the Board. The said Tribunal came to be known as
.C
   Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), with
   the introduction of levy of service tax. The CEGAT and its successor
   CESTATwere constituted as specialized quasi-judicial appellate bodies
   to decide all issues relating to duty assessment under the Customs Act.
   There was no provision of appeal to the jurisdictional High Court against
 D the order of the appellate tribunal. However, under Section 130 of the
   Act a Reference jurisdiction was vested in the High Court on a question
    oflaw not relating to the determination of any question having a relation
   to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of the goods for the purpose
   .of assessment. Under Section 130A, introduced by the Finance Act,
    1980, a Reference jurisdiction was also conferred in the Supreme Court
 E in case the Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that on account of a
   conflict in the decisions of the High Courts on the same question oflaw,
    a reference to the Supreme Court is necessary. Under Section 130E(a)
    an appeal was provided to the Supreme Court from any judgment of the
    High Court delivered on a Reference, where the High Court certified
.p the case to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Under Section
    130E(b) against any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal relating,
    among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation
    to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of
    assessment, an appeal was also provided to the Supreme Court. Section
    130F of the Customs Act, 1962 provided that the provisions of Civil
 G Procedure Code, 1908 relating to appeals to the Supreme Colirt shall, so
    far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under Section 130 as they
    apply in the case of appeals from decrees of a High Court.
             5. An amendment though not of any significant consequence, made
      in the year 1999 may also be noticed. The reference jurisdiction of the
 H
   STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY,                        605
  DIRECTORATE GEN. OF ANTI-DUMPING [RANJAN GQGOI, J.]

High Court under Section 130 which was to be exercised at the instance      A
of the Appellate Tribunal was continued in respect of orders passed,
under Section 129B, by the Appellate Tribunal on or before 1.7.1999.
However, under Section 130A substituted by the Finance Act (No.27)
of 1999 the Reference jurisdiction in respect of orders passed by the
Appellate Tribunal on or after 1.7.1999 was to be exercised by the High     B
Court on an application made to it seeking a reference.
       6. The aforesaid position was again altered in the year 2003.
Against an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on or after I. 7 .2003
(not being order relating to determination of any question having a relation
to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of
assessment) an appeal was provided to the High Court ifthe High Court C
is to be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.
Simultaneously, under Section 130A, the Reference Jurisdiction of the
High Court was continued in respect of orders passed by the Tribunal on
or before 1. 7.2003. Such reference jurisdiction remained circumscribed
as before, as already noticed.                                               D
       7. Under the 2003 Amendment, as against an order passed by the
High Court in appeal or on a reference, an appeal to the Supreme Court
continued to be provided [Section 130(E)a]. Section 130E(b) remained
and continued to provide that against an order passed by the Appellate
Tribunal relating among other things determination of any question having   E
a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for
purposes of assessment, appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court. Section
130F was retained on similar terms as before.
      8. By the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005, a National Tax Tribunal
was constituted under Section 5 thereof to hear appeals from "every         F
order passed in appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the
Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal if the National Tax
Tribunal is satisfied that the case involves substantial question oflaw"
(Section 15). Under Section 23 of the National Tax Tribunal Act, 200.5
on and from the notified date all proceedings im;luding appeals and
references under direct taxes, and indirect taxes pending before all High   G
Courts stood stand transferred to the National Tax Tribunal. Section 24
provided for an appeal to the Supreme Court against any decision or
order of the National Tax Tribunal. With the enactment of the National
Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 provisions contained in Section 130A, B, C, D of
                                                                            H
606             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A     the Customs Act, 1962 were repealed and the corresponding changes
      were also brought in Section 130E of the said Act. Section 130F continued
      to remain in the same form.
             9. However, the aforesaid repeal effected by the National Tax
      Tribunal Act, 2005 would not be very relevant for the present inasmuch
B     as the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 has been invalidated by this Court
      in the case of Madras Bar Association Vs. Union of India and
      Another. Therefore, it is, the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 as
      prevailing prior to the enactment of the National Tax Tribunal, 2005 which
      is presently holding the field.
c                                   to
              I 0. What is required be noticed at this stage is that under the
      Customs Act, 1962, (as amended), against an order of the appellate
      tribunal on a question not relating to duty or to classification of goods, an
      appeal lies to the High Court on a substantial question oflaw. A reference,
      again, on a question of law, may also be made to the High Court in
      respect of similar orders of the appellate tribunal (not relating to
D     determination of duty or classification of goods) passed on or before
      1.7.2003.Atthe same time, a direct appeal to the Supreme Court against
      an order of the appellate tribunal on a question relating to the rate of
      duty or classification of goods has also been provided for. No conditions,
      restrictions or limitations on the availability of the appellate remedy before
 E    the Supreme Court is envisaged in the main Section [130E(b)] though
      under Section l 30F conditions to the exercise of the appellate power
      seem to have been imposed, the precise application of which is the
      determination i.e. required to be made by us.
             11. Sections 130, 130E and 130F of the Customs Act, 1962 as on
 F    date being the relevant provisions in the context enumerated above may
      now be noticed.
             "Section 130. Appeal to High Court. -
             (I) An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed
             in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal on or after the I st day of July,
 G           2003 (not being an order relating, among other things, to the
             determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty
             of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment),
             if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial
             question oflaw.
H     '(2014) 10 sec 1
 STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY,                              607
DIRECTORATE GEN. OF ANTI-DUMPING [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

   (2) Commissioner of Customs or the other party aggrieved by                  A
   any order passed by the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to
   the High Court and such appeal under this sub-section shall be -
   (a) filed within one hui;idred and eighty days from the date on
       which the order appealed against is received by the
       Commissioner of Customs or the other party;                              B
   (b) accompanied by a fee of two hundred rupees where such
       appeal is filed by the other party;
   (c) in the form of a memorandum of appeal precisely stating
       therein the substantial question of law involved
                                                                                c
   (2A) The High Court may admit an appeal after the expiry of the
   period of one hundred and eighty days referred to in clause (a) of
   sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for
   not filing the same within that period.
   (3) Where the High Court is satisfied that a substantial question            D
   of law is involved in any case, it shall formulate that question.
   (4) The appeal shall be heard only on the question so formulated,
   and the respondents shall, at the hearing of the appeal, be allowed
   to argue that the case does not involve such question:
   Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take            E
   away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be
   recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question oflaw not
   formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involves such question.
   ( 5) The High Court shall decide the question oflaw so formulated
   and deliver such judgment thereon containing the grounds on which            F
   such decision is founded and may award such cost as it deems fit.
   (6) The High Court may determine any issue which -
   (a) has not been determined by the Appellate Tribunal; or
   (b) has been wrongly determined by the Appellate Tribunal, by                G
       reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to
       in sub-section ( l ).
   (7) When an appeal has been filed before the High Court, it shall
   be heard by a bench of not less than two Judges of the High
                                                                                H
608      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017) 6 S.C.R.



A     CoUl't, and shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of
      such Judges or of the majority, if any, of such Judges.
      (8) Where there is no such majority, the Judges shall state the
      point of law upon which they differ and the case shall, then, be
      heard upon that point only by one or more of the other Judges of
B     the High Court and such point shall be decided according to the
      opinion of the majority of the Judges who have heard the case
      including those who first heard it.
      (9) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the
      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) relating to appeals to
c     the High Court shall, as far as may be, apply in the case of appeals
      under this section."
      "Section l 30E. Appeal to Supreme Court. -An appeal shall lie to
      the Supreme Court from -
           (a)    any judgment of the High Court delivered-
D
           (i)    in an appeal made under section 130; or
           (ii)   on a reference made under section 130 by the Appellate
                  Tribunal before the I st day of July, 2003;
           (iii) on a reference made under section 130A,
 E                in any case which, on its own motion or on an oral
                  application made by or on behalf of the party aggrieved,
                  immediately after passing of the judgment, the High
                  Court certifies to be a fit one for appeal to the Supreme
                  Court; or
 F         (b) any order passed before the establishment of the
               National Tax Tribunal by the Appellate Tribunal relating,
               among other things, to the determination of any question
               having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the
               value of goods for purposes of assessment."
 G    "Section l30F. Hearing before Supreme Court. -
           (1) The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5
                of 1908), relating to appeals to the Supreme Court shall,
                so far as may be, apply in the case of appeals under
                section l 30E as they apply in the case of appeals from
 H              decrees of a High Court:
   STEELAUTHORITY OF INDIA v. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY,                             609
  DIRECTORATE GEN. OF ANTI-DUMPING [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

                Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed       A
                 to affect the provisions of sub-section ( 1) of section 1300
                 or section 131.
            (2) The costs of the appeal shall be in the discretion of the
                Supreme Court.
            (3) Where the judgment of the High Court is varied or               B
                reversed in the appeal, effect shall be given to the order
                of the Supreme Court in the manner provided in section
                130D in the case of a judgment of the High Court."
       12. The history of the customs duty regime traced out above would
go to show that after constitution of the Appellate Tribunal, the               C
proceedings of which were/are deemed under the Act to be judicial
proceedings, the duty of determining the correctness of questions relating
to rate of duty or classification of goods has been primarily cast by the
Act on the Tribunal. The Reference jurisdiction of the High Court up to
the time of the amendment made in the year 2003 and the Appellate               D
jurisdiction of the High Court thereafter is in respect of questions not
relatable to the rate of duty or classification of goods. An appeal also lies
to the Supreme Court against the order or the judgment of the High
Court either in exercise of the appellate or reference jurisdiction [Section
 130E(a)]. At the same time, a direct appeal lies to the Supreme Court
against an order passed by the appellate tribunal relating to the question      E
of duty or classification of goods [Section 130E(b)]. Section 130F has
weathered all amendments and make the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure relating to an appeal to the Supreme Court applicable to appeals
under Section 130 of the Act. The question, therefore, would be whether
the provisions of Section 130F would be applicable to both sets ofappeals       F
that may be filed before Supreme Court, namely, against orders of the
High Court as well as those of the appellate tribunal.
       13. The language used by the legislature in Section 130F of the
Act prescribing the contours of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
while hearing appeals either against the decision of the High Court in its      G
appellate or reference jurisdiction or while hearing an appeal against the
order of the appellate tribunal has been same and has remained
unchanged throughout the legislative history of Chapter XV of the Act
(dealing with appeals) commencing with the amendment brought about
by the Finance Act of 1980. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code
                                                                                H
610             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A     1908 relating to appeals to the Supreme Court from a decree of a High
      Court, as far as may be, has been made applicable to all appeals to the
      Supreme Court under Section l30E of the Act. Section 130F of the Act,
      all along, has dealt with both sets of appeals that would lie to the Supreme
      Court, namely, against an order of the High Court in exercise of its
      appellate or reference jurisdiction, as the case may be, or against the
B
      order of the appellate tribunal. If that be so, there is no reason why the
      appellate power of the Supreme Court under Section l30E(b) against
      the order of the appellate tribunal should be construed in a manner
      different from the contours of the appellate power under Section l 30E(a)
      against the order of the High Court.
c           14. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the
      appeals to the Supreme Court against decrees of the High Court are
      contained in Section 109 of the Civil Procedure Code which is in the
      following terms:
             "109. When appeals lie to the Supreme Court.-
 D
             Subject to the provisions in Chapter IV of Part V of the
             Constitution and such rules as may, from time to time, be made by
             the Supreme Court regarding appeals from the Courts of India,
             and to the provisions hereinafter contained, an appeal shall lie to
             the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree or final order in a
 E           civil proceeding of a High Court, ifthe High Court certifies-
             (i) that the case involves a substantial question oflaw of general
                  importance; and
             (ii) that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs
                  to be decided by the Supreme Court."
 F
             15. Chapter N of Part V of the Constitution contains the provisions
      in Articles 132, 133, 134 and l34A which contemplate appeals to the
      Supreme Court from any judgment or decree or final order of the High
      Court in exercise of its civil, criminal or any other jurisdiction provided
 G    the High Court certifies that the case involves (i) a substantial question
      oflaw as to the interpretation of the Constitution, (ii) a substantial question
      of law of general importance which in the opinion of the High Court
      needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.
            16. Chapter N of Part V of the Constitution expressly limits the
      appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to what has been noticed
 H
   STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY,                      611
  DIRECTORATE GEN. OF ANTI-DUMPING [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

above. The power of the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal A
under Article 136 is an exception, the scope of which is not in issue and
hence need not detain the Court. Article 138 of the Constitution confers
power on the Union Parliament to confer further jurisdiction in the
Supreme Court with regard to any of the matters in the Union List or
any matter as the Government of India and the Government of a State B
may by special agreement confer, subject to enactment of a law to such
effect by the Union Parliament. It is under the provisions of Article 138
that the statutory power of appeal under different statutory regimes has
been conferred on the Supreme Court of India. Article 138 of the
Constitution could not and does not deal with the scope of the appellate
power that a statutory enactment made by the Union Parliament may C
confer on the Supreme Court. Rather, it deals with the range of the
subjects to which the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be extended/
enlarged by Parliament. Therefore, while construing the extent of the
appellate jurisdiction to be exercised by the Supreme Court under a
statutory enactment, the role of the Supreme Court as envisaged by the D
Constitution cannot altogether be lost sight of particularly when different
statutes like the Electricity Act, 2003; Companies Act 2013, National
Green Tribunal Act, 20 I 0, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act,
1997, by way of illustration, expressly limit the appellate power of the
Supreme Court to determination of substantial questions oflaw (Section
l 00 CPC). To our minds the position should be no different in construing E
the provisions of Section l 30E(b) of the Act though it omits to specifically
mention any such limitation.
        17. Section l 30E(b) of the Act provides for a direct appeal to the
Supreme Court against an Order of the appellate tribunal, broadly
speaking, on a question involving government revenue. This seems to be F
in view of the fact that the order that would be under appeal i.e. (order
of the appellate tribunal) may go beyond the inter se dispute between
the parties and effect upon a large number of assessees. The issue, in
such an event, surely will be one of general/public importance.
Alternatively, the question raised or arising may require interpretation of
the provisions of the Constitution. Such interpretation may involve a fresh G
or a relook or even an attempt to understand the true and co~rect purport
of a laid down meaning-of the Constitutional provisions that may come
into focus in a given case. It is only such questions of importance, alone,
that are required to be decided by the Supreme Court and by the very
                                                                            H
612             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A     nature of the questions raised or arising, the same necessarily have to
      involve issues oflaw going beyond the inter partes rights and extending
      to a class or category of assessees as a whole. This is the limitation that
      has to be understood to be inbuilt in Section l 30E(b) of the Act which, in
      our considered view, would also be consistent with the role and jurisdiction
      of the Supreme Court of India as envisaged under the Constitution.
 B
      Viewed from the aforesaid perspective, the jurisdiction of the Supreme
      Court under Section l 30E(b) of the Act or the pari materia provisions
      of any other Statute would be in harmony with those contained in Chapter
      IV of Part V of the Constitution.
             18. Two decisions of this Court would require a specific notice at
 c this stage. The first is in the case of Navin Chemicals Mfg. and Trading
      Co. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs 2, where this Court has taken the
      view that the expression "determination ofany question having a relation
      to the rate of duty of customs or, value of goods for purposes of
      assessment" must be read as meaning a direct and proximate relationship
 D    to the rate of duty and to the value of goods for purposes of assessment.
      The other is the decision of this Court in Collector ofCustoms, Bombay
      vs. Swastic Woollen (P) Ltd. and Ors. 3, where this Court had an
      occasion to deal with the ambit of the appellate power under Section
      130E of the Customs Act. The following extract from the judgment in
 E    Swastic Woollen (supra) amply summarize the view of this Court on
      the above question and therefore would require to be extracted.
            "9 .... Whether a particular item and the particular goods in this
                case are wool wastes, should be so considered or not is primarily
                and essentially a question of fact. The decision of such a question
 F              of fact must be arrived at without ignoring the material and
                relevant facts and bearing in mind the correct legal principles.
                Judged by these yardsticks the finding of the Tribunal in this
                case is unassailable. We are, however, of the view that if a fact
                finding authority comes to a conclusion within the above
                parameters honestly and bona fide, the fact that another authority
 G              be it the Supreme Court or the High Court may have a different
                perspective of that question, in our opinion, is no ground to
                interfere with that finding in an appeal from such a finding. In
                the new scheme of things, the Tribunals have been entrusted
      ------
      2(1993) 4 sec 320
 H    'AIR1988SC2176
   STEELAUTHORITY OF INDIA v. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY,                           613
  DIRECTORATE GEN. OF ANTI-DUMPING [RANJAN GOGOi, J.]

         with the authority and the jurisdiction to decide the guestions A
         involving determination of the rate of duty of excise or to the
         value of goods for pumoses of assessment. An appeal has been
         provided to this Court to oversee that the subordinate Tribunals
         act within the law. Merely because another view might be
         possible by a competent Court of law is no ground for B
         interference under Section 130-E of the Act though in relation
         to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for
         pumoses of assessment, the amplitude of appeal is unlimited.
         But because the jurisdiction is unlimited. there is inherent
         limitation imposed in such appeals. The Tribunal has not deviated
         from the path of correct principle and has considered all the C
         relevant factors. If the Tribunal has·· acted bona fide with tlie
         natural justice by a speaking order, in our opinion, even if superior
         Court feels that another view is possible, that is no ground for
         substitution of that view in exercise of power under clause (b)
         of Section 130-E of the Act."
                                                                              D
       19. On the basis of the discussion that have preceded, it must
therefore be held that before admitting an appeal under Section l 30E(b)
of the Customs Act, the following conditions must be satisfied:
      (i) The question raised or arising must have a direct and/or
          proximate nexus to the question of determination of the E
          applicable rate of duty or to the determination of the value of
          the goods for the purposes of assessment of duty. This is a sine
          qua non forthe admission of the appeal before this Court under
          Section 130E(b) of the Act.                ,. ·
     (ii),The question raised must involve a substantial question oflaw       F
         which has not been answered or, on which, there is a confliet
         of decisions necessitating a resolution.
     (iii)lf the tribunal, on consideration of the material and relevant
         facts, had arrived at a conclusion which is a possible conclusion,
         the same must be allowed to rest even if this Court is inclined      G
         to take another view of the matter.
      (iv)The tribunal had acted in gross violation of the procedure or
         principlesnfnaturaljustice occasioning a failure ofjustice.

                                                                              H
614           . SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 6 S.C.R.


A            20. The above parameters, which by no means should be
      considered to be exhaustive, may now be applied to the case of the
      parties before us to decide the primary question indicated at the outset
      of the present order, namely, whether this appeal deserves to be admitted.
         21. The appellant which is a public sector undertaking is engaged
B in the manufacture of steel in the· regular course of its business. The
  appellant uses graphite electrodes which it gets imported from China.
  Against such imports from China, on the basis of the final report of the
  Designated Authority acting under the Anti Dumping Rules, namely, the
  Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-
  Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury)
c Rules, 1995, the Union oflndia by a Notification dated 13.02.2015 has
  imposed anti-dumping duty upon the import of graphite electrodes of all
  diameters from specific importers operating within the Republic of China
  for a period of five years. This Notification was challenged by the
  appellant before the appellate tribunal (CESTAT). On behalf of the
D appellant it was urged before the learned Tribunal that the Designated
  Authority had determined the normal value of graphite electrodes within
  China in an impermissible manner and that there has been application of
  excessive confidentiality in the report of the Designated Authority. No
  challenge to the validity of any provision of the Anti Dumping Rules
  which sets out the procedure for determination of the margin of dumping
E was laid before the Appellate Tribunal.
             22. The learned Tribunal, on due consideration, came to the
      conclusion that the report of the Designated Authority neither suffers
      from any excessive imposition of confidentiality nor from the alleged
      non-consideration of any of the grounds urged on behalf of the appellant.
 F    The tribunal further held that the Designated Authority had followed an
      acceptable method of determining the normal value of electrodes within
      China by comparing individual work undertaken by an exporter vis-a-vis
      the export price imposed and that there was no infirmity in the matter of
      such determination.
 G           23. Specifically, the final findings of the Designated Authority
      disclose that to determine the margin of dumping the said authority
      undertook an exercise to find out the normal value of graphite electrodes
      in the Republic of China and then proceeded to compare the same with
      the export price of the product. The Designated Authority on conclusion
 H
   STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY,                             615
  DIRECTORATE GEN. OF ANTI-DUMPING [RANJAN GOGOI, J.]

of an arduous determination process came to the conclusion that the A
margin of dumping varies from one exporter to the other and the
percentage thereof varies from 20 to 95 per cent. The. Designated
Authorjty also found that the demand for graphite electrodes from the
domestic industries had increased by 37% during the period ofinvestigation
(2009-2012) whereas the demand from particular exporters in China· B
had increased by 177 per cent during the same period. ·The Designated
Authority further found that during the period of investigation the
production of graphite electrodes by the domestic industry had decreased
whereas the import of the same from China had increased substantially
and, therefore, the domestic industries are suffering material injury due
to dumping of graphite electrodes from exporters within China. It is on C
the basis of the aforesaid findings that the Designated Authority had
recommended that anti-dumping duty be imposed which foun_d
manifestation in the Gazette Notification dated 13.2.2015.
       24. The above narration clearly disclose that the findings recordJ<d
by the learned appellate tribunal on the basis of which the appeal of the        D
present appellant has been dismissed are findings of fact arrived at on
due consideration of all relevant materials on record. If that is so, on the
ratio of the decision of this Court in the case of Swastic Woollen (supra)
we will have no occasion to have a re-look into the matter in the exercise
of our appellate jurisdiction under Section l 30E(b) of the Act.
                                                                                 E
       25. The appeal, consequently, is dismissed by refusing admission.


Divya Pandey                                                 Appeal dismissed.