focused on all those elements that make up the injury. However, in circumvention proceedings, the trajectory of the inquiry is altogether different. It is whether, given the existence of ADD (and the established existence of injury), there is any behavior – in the form of import of other products, which can be adapted or altered for use as the product or articles that are subject to ADD. Whilst the decisive nature of the observations of the DA in past instances is facially compelling for a court to hold that there should not be a fresh inquiry, yet one cannot be oblivious to the nuanced nature of the circumvention procedure. The power to resort to it should be based on objective material. In the present case, the information, which the respondents rely upon is the stagnancy in demand of the article which is subject to ADD, and the pattern of increase in import of CRSS that is wider than 1250 mm. The Petitioners‟ argument that the subject matter of the previous orders and observations are the same in circumvention proceedings, is unpersuasive to this court. A superficial analysis no doubt could lead one to conclude it to be so; however, for doing that, this court would have to assume that reduction of size from 1250 mm width to lower than that, is not a process of assembling or making of a new article. That would involve interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Customs Tariff Act and the relevant entries to the schedule, which impose the duty. The inquiry of the process of slitting and cutting of a steel strip, as well as if it amounts to “assembling” a disassembled or incomplete article, would then become an issue in respect of which neither party addressed arguments on merits, nor presented the necessary facts. Given the fact that this would be the subject matter of inquiry and arguments before the competent forum, a ruling in this proceeding is neither desirable nor warranted having regard to the
