Remand compliance in production-capacity determination upheld where expert inspection confirmed pusher-type furnaces and no infirmity was shown.

The Commissioner's fresh adjudication after remand was upheld because he complied with the direction to inspect the furnaces with technical experts, obtained a categorical certificate that the furnaces were pusher type, and redetermined annual production capacity on that basis. The challenge failed since the appellants did not dispute the experts' competence or identify any infirmity in the report, and the low-speed nature of the rolling mills had not been raised before the Commissioner. In these circumstances, the fresh orders were not shown to be contrary to law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner's fresh orders, passed after remand and based on the experts' certificate classifying the furnaces as pusher type, warranted interference on the ground that the low speed nature of the rolling mills had not been considered.

Analysis: The matter had earlier been remanded only for a fresh decision after inspection of the furnaces with technical experts and after granting a hearing. The Commissioner complied with that direction, inspected the furnaces with experts from the National Institute of Secondary Steel Technology, obtained a categorical report that the furnaces were pusher type, and redetermined the annual capacity of production on that basis. The appellants did not dispute the competence of the experts or show any infirmity in the report, and the plea regarding low speed mills had not been raised before the Commissioner. In these circumstances, there was no ground to hold that the fresh adjudication was contrary to law.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Commissioner's fresh orders failed and the orders were upheld.

---