Stenter machine gallery dimensions excluded from capacity computation; inadequate reasoning led to remand for fresh consideration.

The dimensions of the stenter machine galleries were treated as separate from the hot air chamber because the galleries served an insulating function rather than blowing hot air on the fabric. On that basis, they were not includible in annual capacity computation under the applicable capacity determination rules. The later notification and explanatory rule change reinforced that the earlier position needed clarification. As the impugned order did not properly address the structural and functional distinction, it was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dimensions of the galleries of the stenter machines were includible in fixing the annual capacity of production under the applicable capacity determination rules, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The galleries were found to have a structure and function distinct from the hot air chamber, as they were meant for insulation and not for blowing hot air on the fabric. On that basis, they could not be treated as part of the hot air chamber for capacity computation. The later notification and explanatory change in the rule supported the view that the earlier position required clarification. The order under challenge did not examine this structural and functional distinction in a reasoned manner.

Conclusion: The inclusion of the gallery dimensions was not justified on the materials considered, and the impugned order was set aside with remand for de novo consideration after hearing the appellants.

---