Re-determination of annual capacity follows reduced installed machinery capacity under the compounded levy scheme, overriding contrary deeming objections.

Where changes in installed machinery reduce a hot re-rolling steel mill's production capacity, annual capacity and duty liability must be re-determined on the revised reduced capacity under the 1997 Capacity Determination Rules. The capacity reduction was accepted on the facts, and Rule 4(2) required reassessment in that situation. Rule 5 did not prevent re-determination on those facts, so the duty burden had to align with the lower installed capacity. Consequential relief followed from the revised computation of duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after changes in the installed machinery that reduced the mill's production capacity, the annual capacity and duty liability could be re-determined under the Hot Re-Rolling Steel Mill Annual Capacity Determination Rules, 1997 despite Rule 5.

Analysis: The capacity had been accepted as having fallen because of the machinery changes, and Rule 4(2) required re-determination of annual capacity in such a situation. Once the installed machinery is altered in a manner that reduces capacity, the duty burden must correspond to the revised capacity. Rule 5 did not bar re-determination on the facts found, and the contrary view was inconsistent with the accepted reduction in capacity.

Conclusion: The duty liability had to be re-determined on the basis of the revised reduced capacity, and the appellants were entitled to consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a change in installed machinery reduces production capacity, annual capacity and duty liability under the compounded levy scheme must be reassessed on the revised capacity, and a contrary deeming provision cannot defeat that re-determination.

---