# M/S. HARIDAS EXPORTS v. ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS MFRS. ASSOCIATION AND ORS - **Citation:** [2002] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 229 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2002-07-22 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2330 and 3572 of 2000 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/m-s-haridas-exports-v-all-india-float-glass-mfrs-association-and-ors-18601 - **Pages:** 40 ## Headnote j M/S. HARIDAS EXPORTS A v. ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS MFRS. ASSOCIATION AND ORS. JULY 22, 2002 ,, " ' ' [B.N. KIRPAL, CJ. Y.K:·SABHARWAL'AND 't '' , B ,.,. . ; .,. · K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] ... ·1 "I ,; ,, ·'"''''' ' " " ., , " I• 11 ', I' l11 .. , 1' : I• l. iK· L, }I Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices.Act, 1969-Sections fl2),, r 2(c), 2(o), 2(u), 33(1)(1) and (ja), 36-A and. 37-Foreign Manufactwers ''C exporting goods into India and selling at predatory pric~omplaint. under.,; the Act .restrictive trade practice-Jurisdiction of MRTP. Commission--Plea , that Commission has no jurisdiction since sections 33(J)(j)and (fa) impliedly_, repealed by anti-dumping provisions-Held, anti-dumping provisions do not, per se oust the jurisdiction of Commission--/! can take action in respect of , imported goods or otherwise-However it cannot stop import and cannot D decide validity of the action of Government in permitting import of goods at predatory price---Customs Tariff Act, 1975-Sections 9-A. to 9-C- Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on ' Dumped Articles and/or Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. · · .. ,, · Ju 1 • I• rl ,I I; I -r I •. •1 ,. I Sec::on 12-A(l)-Temporary injunction--Grant of-Jurisdiction of., E . Commission-Held, could be granted on the basis of proof that restrictive trade practices likely to affect prejudicially the public interest, or interest of any trader, class of traders or traders generally or bf customers, and i:ot on : me;e allegation--Merely because an industry will find itself unable to compeie with imports from outside India can be no ground for exercising jurisdiction F under the Section. · ,. - ' • '. ' ... '~ II. Section 12-A Explanation II-Temporary Injunction-Grant a/- Procedure for-Commission should normally give notice and hear the respondents before passing an order ofinjunction---Code o/Civil.Procedure,1 · 1908-0rder XXXIX Rule 211. • '' ,, , • G .,. " a ·11. Section 37.,-Cartel formation outside India-Export by the cartel _into India-Jurisdiction of MRTP Commission to interfere. wjt~ .cartel formatio~ Held, is outside the territorial jurisdiction of Commission--But if the cartel carries out restrictive trade practice in -India then Commission will get jurisdiction. ' ' 229 ,,. , .• H 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. A · Docthne-"Effect Doctrine "-Applicability of Words and Phrases- "goods "-Meaning of in the context of Section 2(e) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 2330 and 3572 of 2000; 76 of 2002 B and SLP (c) No. 22549 of 2001 are that Respondent No.I, an association of domestic float glass manufacturers filed a complaint under Section 33(1)(j), Ga) and Section 36-A read with Section 2(o) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 before of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade· Practices Commission (MRTP Commission) against Indonesian C companies alleging that they were selling float glass at prices much lower than their cost of production and thereby were indulging in selling at predatory prices with an intent to eliminate competition and causing material injury to the interest of domestic float glass industry; and that the MRTP Commission passed injunction against the Indonesian companies restraining them from exporting float glass to India at allegedly D predatory prices. C.A. No., 3562 of 2000 is against th'e MRTP Commission's interim injunction which was subsequently confirmed, directing the appellant, an export cartel which used to produce natu~al soda and export it in India, not to indulge in the practice of cartelization by exporting soda ash to India E in the form of cartel directly or indirectly. F The questions for considerations before this Court were whether MRTP Act has extra territorial jurisdictions; whether the principle of "effect doctrine" has any application in India i.e. where action takes place and agreements are entered into outside India but th ## Text _Characters 0–39,967 of 102,189. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39967 for what follows._ j M/S. HARIDAS EXPORTS A v. ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS MFRS. ASSOCIATION AND ORS. JULY 22, 2002 ,, " ' ' [B.N. KIRPAL, CJ. Y.K:·SABHARWAL'AND 't '' , B ,.,. . ; .,. · K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] ... ·1 "I ,; ,, ·'"''''' ' " " ., , " I• 11 ', I' l11 .. , 1' : I• l. iK· L, }I Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices.Act, 1969-Sections fl2),, r 2(c), 2(o), 2(u), 33(1)(1) and (ja), 36-A and. 37-Foreign Manufactwers ''C exporting goods into India and selling at predatory pric~omplaint. under.,; the Act .restrictive trade practice-Jurisdiction of MRTP. Commission--Plea , that Commission has no jurisdiction since sections 33(J)(j)and (fa) impliedly_, repealed by anti-dumping provisions-Held, anti-dumping provisions do not, per se oust the jurisdiction of Commission--/! can take action in respect of , imported goods or otherwise-However it cannot stop import and cannot D decide validity of the action of Government in permitting import of goods at predatory price---Customs Tariff Act, 1975-Sections 9-A. to 9-C- Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on ' Dumped Articles and/or Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. · · .. ,, · Ju 1 • I• rl ,I I; I -r I •. •1 ,. I Sec::on 12-A(l)-Temporary injunction--Grant of-Jurisdiction of., E . Commission-Held, could be granted on the basis of proof that restrictive trade practices likely to affect prejudicially the public interest, or interest of any trader, class of traders or traders generally or bf customers, and i:ot on : me;e allegation--Merely because an industry will find itself unable to compeie with imports from outside India can be no ground for exercising jurisdiction F under the Section. · ,. - ' • '. ' ... '~ II. Section 12-A Explanation II-Temporary Injunction-Grant a/- Procedure for-Commission should normally give notice and hear the respondents before passing an order ofinjunction---Code o/Civil.Procedure,1 · 1908-0rder XXXIX Rule 211. • '' ,, , • G .,. " a ·11. Section 37.,-Cartel formation outside India-Export by the cartel _into India-Jurisdiction of MRTP Commission to interfere. wjt~ .cartel formatio~ Held, is outside the territorial jurisdiction of Commission--But if the cartel carries out restrictive trade practice in -India then Commission will get jurisdiction. ' ' 229 ,,. , .• H 230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. A · Docthne-"Effect Doctrine "-Applicability of Words and Phrases- "goods "-Meaning of in the context of Section 2(e) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. The facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 2330 and 3572 of 2000; 76 of 2002 B and SLP (c) No. 22549 of 2001 are that Respondent No.I, an association of domestic float glass manufacturers filed a complaint under Section 33(1)(j), Ga) and Section 36-A read with Section 2(o) of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 before of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade· Practices Commission (MRTP Commission) against Indonesian C companies alleging that they were selling float glass at prices much lower than their cost of production and thereby were indulging in selling at predatory prices with an intent to eliminate competition and causing material injury to the interest of domestic float glass industry; and that the MRTP Commission passed injunction against the Indonesian companies restraining them from exporting float glass to India at allegedly D predatory prices. C.A. No., 3562 of 2000 is against th'e MRTP Commission's interim injunction which was subsequently confirmed, directing the appellant, an export cartel which used to produce natu~al soda and export it in India, not to indulge in the practice of cartelization by exporting soda ash to India E in the form of cartel directly or indirectly. F The questions for considerations before this Court were whether MRTP Act has extra territorial jurisdictions; whether the principle of "effect doctrine" has any application in India i.e. where action takes place and agreements are entered into outside India but the resultant adverse effect is experienced in India then can the MRTP Commission have any jurisdiction; whether anti-dumping provisions as provided in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 would oust the jurisdiction of MRTP G Commission; and whether import by Indian party from foreign country at predatory prices required the agreement for import to be registered as per Section 33(1)(.j) of the MRTP Act; and whether under the facts and circumstances of the case passing of injunction order was called for. In Civil Appeal No. 3562 of 2000, additional question for H consideration was whether the Commission had jurisdiction to interfere HARIDAS EXPORTS 1'. ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS MFRS. ASSOCIATION 231 with cartel formation; and whether the Commissi.on had jurisdiction to A grant injunction. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: I.I. On the facts of the instant case, impugned order passed by the MRTP Commission against the Indonesian exporters cannot be B sustained and is set aside. Anti-dumping provisions do not per se oust the jurisdiction of the MRTP Commission. MRTP Commission can, inter a/ia take action· whenever a restrictive trade practice is carried out in India in respect of imported goods or otherwise. It is only in respect of the Indian leg of the restrictive trade practice, can an order under Section 12A and/ or Section 37 be passed. Under Section 33 of the Act what can be registered C is only an agreement in regard to which any party to an agreement carries on business in India [Section 35 Explanation l J. But this does not mean that if an agreement is entered into outside India and which results in a Restrictive Trade Practice in India, the MRTP Commission has no jurisdiction. The "effect doctrine" apply and Section 2(u) and Section 37 D gives jurisdiction to the MRTP Commission to pass appropriate orders qua the Restrictive Trade Practice in India. The MRTP Commission, in such a case, may not be able to stop import but there can be order imposing post import restrictions such as, for example, not to sell imported goods in India in such a manner which will be regarded as a restrictive trade pracrice under Section 37. [261-F, G, H; 262-A, BJ E 1.2. In Explanation I to Section 35 the use of the words "shall be deemed to be an agreement within the meaning of this section ........... "and the time-frame for registration clearly indicates that Section 33 and Section 35 apply only to the Indian agreements or agreements in India and, therefore, it became necessary to imcorporate Explanation I so as to F enlarge the ambit and give extra territorial jurisdiction in relation to those agreements which relate to performance of services in India and any party to that agreement carries on business in India. [262-C, DJ 1.3. Reading Sections 1(2), 2(c), 14 and Explanation I to Section 35 G of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 together can leave no manner of doubt that the Act has no extra territorial operation. The present case is concerned with float glass, which was sought to be imported into India. For the purpose of the Act, it is only the goods imported into India which will fall within the definition of the word "goods" in Section 2(e). As such for the Commission to exercise any jurisdiction goods must H ,,.,, 11 • 1 " 1, 1 • ~UP.RE~.E. COURT, REPORTS. {2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. A'\ bM~R~.':·~.IJl~hi~i:~J.'!'P.Pr,t~.~.}~tq ~n~!~··.~~ .l~~g as. the import has not_ taken, place and the goods are merely intended for export to Indi_a the same .will not fall within the definition of the word "goods" in Section 2(e). •, · ":1,,. ;)•···: ·(249-H; 250-B, CJ . h'Jtttf4/Jfhe lrestficti~e~tfade 'practi~e 1 'may -e'.'tlie ies·u1t of any ·agreement between the parties in'· India!'A'.fiy·act wiiicli 1falls 1Uffder the 'Category ot restrictive trade practice can'· be irivestigatea into 'and'orders passed under Section 27(1). Sections'. 2(o}'and i(u)'ao riot speCificiillfiridicate thatttie·practice should be carried on•o'nly1bya1pefscirf (){'person's in India. if the ttade practice is such that C'J itbe~o~~~-~r~~~~!~ted t~~~e.:~~a,ct!c,e ~n In~~a.a_s c~n~~mplated by Section ' 2(o);' then-i acbon·<:an be talien under Section 37(1)'m respect of such a trade"practice?l253-'A, ·n11 J1 !J:''l 1 " ; "~: ;. r ' I • ' '1 J " OB'Jm lu!t ~·Job 1idt Jul!.: I no-.:: .1~,· 1 -:f ,., J. G ni1~s:1Under Sedion :33(·1)(j) 1of the Aet;·any'agreemenf to sell goods' 1 atisuch ·prices its would iliave'-the 'effect of eliminating competition or a•· DJ coml)etitor is'-regardedas·an'a'greement relating to ·an ·agreement relating· to•restrictive·.trade,practice and shall be subject to registration. The Act - nowhere states1't-hatithis agreement should be' only iri India or between Indfan'·parties.·11n effect;·this Section recognize's 'effeet doctrine', nameiy;- • where·.an·agreement r-Csults 'in sale of goods at ·such prices which would E _ havelthe ·effect of. eliminating !Competition or a competifor. In the very · l nature of things, die -safo l()f, goods keeping ·in mind the definition of the· word "goods" in Section 2(e) must be of goods imported into lndia,.in the 'lcf 1_,1•.rft~'"' 1.h"ll~/I ~Hf~ h) ~~., ~111 ~~. 1~(1 J•~,, 1.J., ._,,i.~',1 ;• , • ; case hke the' present. Thus, the agreement requmng registration must be in°fespecn>f·g86ai~it~/. thei~ 1 illl'po·rfintt~Jl~d~f. 1S~SMo!1 ~3.,_ peing an outside India agreement nevertheless, ,if any, restrictive trade practice, as a consequence of any such UiJU)~t:...Hl euu ....... .:4 US\JTf'iiHIUl"f Jl .. ll. ,., H an outside agreement, is carried out in India then the Commission shall j { Jt:i.ttn 1"';1J\Jti"'4 u\HJ ''U'·~ tL"~ -i~n. a · •. ,, · : , HARIDAS EXPORTS 1•. ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS MFRS. ASSOCIATION 233 have jurisdiction under Section 37(1) in respect of that restrictive trade A practice if it comes to the conclusion that the same is prejudicial to the public interest. (254-C, D, E, F] I. 7. ,It is possible that persons outside India indulge in such trade practices, not necessarily restricted to the effectuation of prices within India, which have the effect of preventing distorting or restricting B competition in India or gives rise to a restrictive trade practice within India then in respect of that restrictive trade practice, MRTP Commission will · have jurisdiction. If the effect of restrictive trade practices came to be felt in India because of a part of the trade practice being implemented here the MRTP Commission would have jurisdiction. This "effects doctrine" C will clothe the MRTP Commission with jurisdiction to pass an appropriate order even though a transaction, for example, which results in exporting goods to India at predatory price, which was in effect a restrictive trade practice, had been carried out outside the territory of India if the effect of that had resulted in a restrictive trade practice in India. If power is not given to the MRTP Commission to have jurisdiction with regard to D that part of trade practice in India which is restri~tive in nature then it will mean that persons outside India can continu~ to indulge in such practices whose adverse effect is felt in India with impugnity. A competition law like the MRTP Act is a mechanism to counter cross border economic terrorism. Therefore, even though such an a~reement may enter . E, into outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission but if it results in a restrictive trade practice in India then the Commission will have jurisdiction under Section 37 to pass appropriate orders in respect of such restrictive trade practice. (254-G, H; 255-A-C] · F 1.8. In the instant case no challenge to the import policy allowing import of float glass and even if such a challenge was to be there it would hardly succeed. The grievance of the respondents is that import is being made at predatory prices. The challenge is to the actual import. But allowing such a challenge will amount 'fo giving the MRTP Commission jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legal validity of the provisions relating G to import, which jurisdiction the Co'!lmission does not have. It is not a court with power of judicial review over legislative action. Therefore, it would have no jurisdiction to decide whether the action of the G?vern~ent in permitting import of float glass even at predatory prices is valid or not. The Commission cannot prohibit import, its jurisdiction commences after I . ,. I import is completed and any restrictive trade practice takes place. The H 234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A rate of import duty which is imposed is a legislative act and is thus not amenable to the jurisdiction of the MRTP Commission. (255-F, G, H; 256-BJ B 2.1. The jurisdiction of the MRTP Commission, is not outsted by the Anti-dumping provisions in the Customs Act. The two operate in different fields and have different purpose. (255-D) · 2.2. The levy or non-levy of anti-dumping or other duty being a legislative act pursuant to the exercise of powers under the Customs Tariff • Act can also not be a subject-matter of judicial review by the MRTP "\u·; m1nl ''"'1'Jq H ~·1i1!U « .. :mu '"'' ,!.luim.;il"'J1 nulJ'lnu[m nL-,1>CJi-"1l luing 11J n. roq tlifl n• '""' ·r 11111 ) ·;W,ITrH. ;.f . ni 1- ~nq ·,!Hnt 'Hihhtl'-•;1 tr~ no rwif'.l'I~ t1l II r10h11rrn.h•1 l 'i11 ".,• 1 ni lud .noihnuini n1noc1m .. ! '!T''t>n· •. '.I 'Jtsr~·~:!lj 0J-: ,33~21~.~l91q'; ~P,, }.2 :.3 ~(t9.0?.,aRR,1~?.~f,l1°.f,J,09R:.~ ,,J ;: J~-r. t BJ' . . ·, {llll i>. 1chiHah1~a¥arti~1:ii'..NaH~an',1 ibs~1Pii. VeiiabJiiy;'bip~~k1r:~: 1 a~~!~:; Aili1 ·13_tbivah, iGol:iafslioram 1 ani~ili: 1Vfkas 1 rvi:'bhta; :r\.td~l~cih 1 M~1hoti-a, 1 oiije~t1~ "'n" ·.\ · .. 1r1 ..... 1i..,1.,1·"il n, ..... ,1.>-1··v ~-11 '.f"•':"rrl •!··~ ..... , .J'.•·HoJa ·dJJiaih;·'M~. 1 M~iliAar ·s'if v~~t1xit' 1 M's~: ·M:~~'ik' 1 t C) Kai-aliJ~~ia, ·~s~ ~s:1s!lio'fr, 1 stiMinJ~rk, 1 't~ 1 siirii~1is ·M:aft6y?1a'Y~rit'Melit~:'.d Klishnan"Veilugopa1:and Ni5: P.'s: s1lrofi toV ih~ 1iP'Pe~iirig'p~?Heg~·" · ~ ·: "i!: ! .) ,'i .~ .t.-l·<::-..1 .• ulJ'.)OUllll nu Th~ Judgment of the Court was deliven;d by . . . . _ ~ [illl iol r::oil1n1l1L'.b• ·1.0. #I· 1i!J11t Jo!l n!J lno·.;~n .1n tJ:JGl -Jd l .-.l -.:ifrKIRPAL; C.J:;'Civil Appeal· Nos!'~2330·or:iooo;13572"6r 2000, 76:0( 11 D:12002 and•S.l.J.·P/(C) No; 22549•of200l:»lrn .. m ngi·~1nl ;ii! ''l'i11!i" :n·"~l1 '•o ,.1 uoth?l lo 1,ior•i ·, "' 'Hfl .•! 111ntuu'l :·\i;'J!'.: d 1>1bnl ni n·Jfll•Uti 11•1 Leave granted. I(; . / -•M' 1 .lt .. ni .t•,,·1~ "<1 11rn riwi ,1bt.1 t!i .briu l"JJ.. #1t ( 8 u Th~se"appeals are; :against , orders1 passed by. itherMonopolies :.and Re.strictive .Trade Practices Commission·(hereinafter referred.to as the ;'MRTPJb E · J Corpmjssjon'.'.) whereby 1 Indones·i~nrmanufacturers. of1 fl~at1glass; had been r., re~tr:;;ii_ned)from 1 exporting 1the, same.to J~ndia,at allegedly1predatory .prices.- 1uo '.IH .'tllli (ti~ ~wt 14"\l!H"I Jor, 1uli ·r•iiq rrn! h 1& ~boo~ :-niniiiJrlo ~'J1,oqmt Respondent No. l is an associa~iC?n- 19[ 1 ~.9f~bg}.~~s.>lill~n!!f~~Wr_~~~)n.,11 India. During March-April, 1998, complaints were made by the said respondent F . to ,the -.Customs ,Departmenti) alleging that-the tlndonesiammanufactufors of 1 flo_a~ .gl(ls_s.,,jn1ass!:>ciation;with· ~ndian 1importers .were .allegedly.lindulging• in·, :i hel!YYi:l!nder:-invoicing.0lhe 1respondentsJ were, rhowever~l inforified1 by, then l Customs Department in Calcutta that: iftheY. had·.ahy genuine grievance;1the1? same could be made before the Designated Authority, Ministry of Commerce dealingi with -anti!dun'iping Jcomplainis: On J26th I May;' "1998/llie' resp'on~ent G i _No~ l presenteg'a 'complaint before.the Designated Authority~ This coriipl~fof 111 appears toihave' been fiied before 'the...,Ariti~D-tiriipirig AutlioritY aiid tli~ safi:ie~i" was possibly{noe.pursuea by the complainant: j • i '" • ''lll l n11 ;n ri • ud f'I/.. " : 1 j.\-:~.)!: :H--,;:.[ .1·1-' .1011. "f. 11;.i;,·,~1" f.r;,· 110in,~ ,.,b:at 1-JL~" zn1; On l 0th September, 1998, the respondent No. l filed a complaint before the MRTP Commission under Section 33(l)G), · Qa) and .Seetion 36A' read H ~with Section 2(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Ac{ri'.: HARIPAS EXPORTS '" ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS MFRS. ASSOCIATION [B.N. KIRPAL CJ.] 23 7 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the. 'MRTP Act') against three Indonesian, A companies alleging that they were manufacturing float glass and were. selling the same at predatory prices in.· India, and were hence resorting·to restrictive and unfair trade practices. In the complaint, it was stated that the float glass of Indonesian origin was being exported into India at the CIF price of US$ 155. to 180 PMT. At this price, some float glass had be~n .shipped into India !B during the penod December, 1997, to June, 1998. It was alleged that these sale prices were predatory prices as they were ·1ess than not only the· cost of production for the product in Indonesia but also the variable cost of production of the product. The complainant gave figure indicating the estimated cost of float glass internationally as well as the cost of production· of float glass in India with a view to demonstrate that the Indian manufacturers of float glass C would not be able to compete with the price at which the' Indonesian manufacturers were presently selling or intending to seil to Indian consumers. On this basis, it was contended that the sale of float glass by the Indonesian manufacturers at the said price of US$ · l 55 to I 80 PMT will restrict, distort and prevent competition by pricing out Indian producers from the market. · This would result in lowering the production of the Indian industry and the · D consequent idle capacity and losses would force the industry to become sick which would lead to its closure whkh would have a direct impact on ihe employment in the industry. · " In response to the notice issued to the Indonesian companies, Mis. P.T. E Mulia Industries (respondent No. 2 in this appeal) wrote a letter to the MRTP Commission stating that it had never in the past exported float glass to India. The other two respondents did not send any reply to the Commission. The appellant, however, which is the Indian importer of the float glass from Indonesia had filed a caveat before the Commission. It also filed a reply refuting the allegations of the respondent and it was the contention of the F appellant that respondent No. I was a cartel of Indian manufacturers of float glass which was, in fact, exporting out of India at prices ·far lower than the 0 ir own cost of production in India. It was also contended by the appellant herein that the cost of production of float glass was lower in Indonesia than in India and float glass was not being exported to India at predatory prices. G The application under Section 12-A for interim injunction was heard by the Chairman of the Commission and a second Member. There was a difference of opinion amongst them. While the Chairman vide order dated 18th January, 1999, allowed the application and restrained the Indonesian companies from exporting to India their float glass production at 'predatory prices, Dr. S. H 23.8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R. 'A. Chakravarthy, the second Member dismissed the application, inter alia, holding that there was no evidence to substantiate the plea of predatory pricing at this stage. By order dated 9th February, 2000, the third Member who heard the case concurred with the view taken by the Chairman and passed an order of injunction against the Indonesian companies. B While Civil Appeal No. 2330 of 2000 is filed by the Indian importer who was the caveator before the Commission, Civil Appeal No. 3572 of 2000 has been filed by P.T. Muliaglass which is the subsidiary of P.T. Mulia · Industrindo. It is the case of P.T. Muliaglass that the holding company does not carry out any manufacturing operations and that is why it had informed C the MRTP Commission that it was not engaged in the export of float glass to India and, therefore, it did not appear before the MRTP Commission. P.T. Mulia Glass which, in fact, manufacturers the float glass being aggrieved by the order of the MRTP Commission has filed the appeal, inter alia, contending that it is not exporting float glass to India at predatory prices. D On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the MRTP Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the complaint which was made by the respondents. It was submitted that the essence of the complaint of the respondents before the MRTP Commission was of injury to the domestic industry on account of low prices by the Indonesian manufacturers which is a dispute under Anti-Dumping law and does not fall within the jurisdiction E of MRTP Commission. It was submitted that the complaint which was made against the Indonesian exporters was one essentially of dumping as it had been contended that the Indonesian exporters were exporting float glass at very low prices which were predatory in nature and the intention was to cause injury to the domestic industry. F It was submitted that Article 18.1 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GA TT, 1994, provides that "no specific action against dumping of exports from another Member can be taken except in accordance with the provisions of GATT, 1994 as interpreted by this Agreement". The remedy against the practice of"dumping"/export of goods G at "predatory prices" has been expressly agreed upon internationally under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) to which India is a signatory. The Agreement deals with anti-dumping duties and provides mechanism to implement it. In pursuance of the GA TT, 1994, the Parliament for the first time H inserted provisions 9A to 9C in the Customs Tariff Act vide the Customs HARIDAS EXPORTS i•. ALL INDIA FLOAT GLASS MFRS. ASSOCIATION {B.N. KIRPALCJ.J 239 Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1995, No. 6 of 1995 which replaced the provisions A of sections 9, 9A and 9B earlier inserted in the Customs Tariff Act under Act No. 52 of 1982. The Statement of Objects and Reasons to the Bill clearly states that the Bill seeks to amend the Custom Tariff Act to bring the provisions of the Custom Tariff Act in conformity with the provisions of Article VI of the Gatt 1994, and the agreements on subsidies and countervailing measures. B Even the preamble of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act, 1995, No. 6 of 1995 also provides that the provisions of sections 9, 9A and 9B of the Customs Tariff Act, I 975, have been replaced by the new sections 9, 9A and 9B to reflect the changes in the domestic law, consequent upon coming into effect the Agreement on Anti-dumping (i.e. an Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the GA TT 1994) ..... under the Uruguay Round on 1st January, C 1995. Se::ti:n 9A, inter alia, provides that where any article is exported from any country or territory to India at less that its normal value, then, upon the importation of such article into India, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, impose an anti-dumping duty not exceeding D the margin of dumping in relation to such article. The said section indicates how the normal value and the margin of dumping is to be ascertained. Section 9B contains provisions which provide for exemption from levy under Section 9 or Section 9A in certain cases while Section 9C gives the right of appeal against the order of determination or review thereof regarding the existence, E degree and effect of any subsidy or dumping in relation to import of any article. The Act contemplates the Designated Authority, which is appointed under it's provisions, to conduct a detailed investigation into the allegation of dumping of articles before it determines the normal value, export price and the margin of dumping. It is important to note that in undertaking this exercise, the Government or the foreign country exporting the article is required to be F informed. By notification dated lst January, 1995, Anti-Dumping Duty Rules were framed. Rule 14 sets out circumstances under which the designated authority may terminate an investigation. In Rule 14( d), there is a de-minimus requirement that is to say the volume of the dumped imports, actual or potential, should account for not less than 3% of the imports of the like G product. If the imports are below this level, the authority shall terminate the investigation immediately. It is the case of the appellant that the float glass which was imported from Indonesia was much less than 3%. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondents have in the complaint filed by them with the MRTP Commission under the H l'240 ::·"' . I 'l· SUPREME'COURT'REPORTS [2002] SUPP. rs:c.R. 'A ... MRTP'Act'soughnedressal·oftheir alleged grievance tliat'cerfain Indonesian I companies a~e selling· float glass at-~prices ".ffiuch lower tnan'',theif• cost' of . productio'n and are thereby allegedly' indulging in predator/p'ricing with/an , alleged ·intent to ·eliminate competition· arid causinglmaterial· iitjufy to' the I ·interest.of domestic float·glass industrY. For redressaf of the 'alleged grievance .of the respondents; a specific remedy has'been providecl'linder seetioris 9A ;B J to ·9erof the Customs :fariff Act 'and the'1Anti-duinping 'Ducy- Rules·.· The .provisions ofsectioris 9Ato 9C introduced•undei"the'Customs TariffA~t'artd I. the Anti-dumping Duty Rules provide for a complete anCl exhaustive niadiiiiety •. to 1prevcnt dumping .of goods into Iridia'including export:of goods 1into India 'at 'predatory' price: causing "injury'.' to T domestic industry' 'caU'sing ~threat; of · C injuryAo domestic industry by-waylofjimpositiori 'of anti-dumping duty 'on import of such goods. The expression "injury" has been defined under Article 3 of the Agreement on Anti-Dumping as under: _ 11.o·n 1 ~...,nnr; ' .... - · ... d,,. ·. N J• .'! <.· ... lr1 /fJ1fl ·. ~ '1 1 -l .·\· - "ll. ~. ,; ,1L i". 1.i"Injury shall ,unless otherwise .specified, •be taken to •mean ·material rl ' ,jnjury to.a.domestic industry; threat of material injury to·a 'domestic (D ::r·' _ ,; industryfor material retardati~n of1.the 1establishment of such'•an ·, ., · L -,.industry,:and shall be interpreted•in accordance With the provisions'bf this Article.';... , , . • '':J i1J:._, ~(I fl·~'J ~. ·.,,~ j' f · •_, L ' I 'r· ·, J' ,rjt N .. 11i; :/_,/ ·r·.~L••J.I 1 , _.1 ,..,T,1 ·t •.. ~!~; ,r.~ ~L' 1v1r. (tJ, 1 '' ""· h, L11r· ( · 1.r~.'iJ HP Ir;,.",. T~u?, i~ :w,~~' su,bmitted, t~e ~e!ll~dy, for.~l'l!P.o.sition _ofm.1ti-4umping duty h,~~. ,~e.~It ~~~viq7~ .. ~9 ,~s.,t~ pr~v~nt ,qi,st,9.J1iC!!1;,,,impaiin.i:ept ~pd restrictiOI1:.,0f E competition in domestic industry. A specific. authority, i.e., the .Designated I 'T _ , · , 1 Jr l' ~ r U I Ir · • 1 I ' 1 J I • l.• • . r • ' ~~ ~ • • · ., ~ • - l~p!~9ri,ty ~!}. :.~nti-?u!1.1P.l~g h_~s 18e_i;p. .~?~S~!tP!~4. un9~r th.t; ,AJ]thdumping Duty Rules framed under the Customs Tariff Act which has .the powers to ~.•~11. I . .;{· i· . 1l'•,.11.1 ..... J, ·"'-'ll·>J.ILJ •. -'·~~I"'" •• , .• - .. . . - - ~?.?~~cUnvestigat!op ,ul?~n,.~e.ceipt, of a cqp]pl~int from ~he d