M/s. Sinosteel India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 175/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4779 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PEEYUSH JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHAN MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Additional evidence; Wholly owned subsidiary; Avoidance of tax
• Section: 92C; 6; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-175/DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) M/S SINOSTEEL INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 12 TH FLOOR, EROS CORPORATE TOWER, CIRCLE-8(1) NEHRU PLACE, ROOM NO. 163 NEW DELHI-110019 C. R. BUILDING NEW DELHI PAN: AAJCS1181N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY:- SHRI KRISHAN MALHOTRA & SH. ANKUR GOEL, AR. REVENUE BY:- SH. PEEYUSH JAIN, CIT. DR ORDER PER R. S. SYAL, AM. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER DT. 13.12.2011 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143( 3) R.W.S. 144C(5)/254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, IN RELATI ON TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL THROUGH VAR IOUS GROUNDS IS AGAINST THE DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGT H PRICE (ALP) OF CERTAIN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AT RS.4,14,53,877 AS AGAINST THE DECLARED VALUE OF RS.1,58,12,470/-, THEREBY MAKING ADDITION BY WAY OF TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,87, 72,311/-. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF SINOSTEEL CORPORATI ON, CHINA. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING S UPPORT AND ASSISTANCE TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) WITH RESPECT TO PROCURING AND SUPPLYING METALLURGICAL MA TERIALS AND RELATED ACTIVITIES. IN LIEU OF SUCH SERVICES R ENDERED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.1,58,12,470/- AS COMMISSION FROM ITS AES. THE AS SESSEE BENCHMARKED SUCH INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS BY USIN G INTERNAL `COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE (CUP) METH OD. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PRICE SO C HARGED AT ALP, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TPO THAT IT EARNED COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF $0.50/DMT IN A TRANSACTIO N WITH 3 AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY VIZ., TOP RESOURCES HONG KONG LTD. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. A COPY OF INVO ICE DATED 17.10.2005, EVIDENCING SUCH RECEIPT, RELEVANT TO T HE YEAR IN QUESTION, WAS ALSO FILED. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE TP O THAT THERE WERE THREE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN WHIC H THE ASSESSEE HAD CHARGED COMMISSION. IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST TRANSACTION WITH SINOSTEEL INTERNATIONAL MACAO COMM ERCIAL OFFSHORE LTD. (SIMCO), THE ASSESSEE CHARGED COMMISS ION AT THE RATE OF 0.50 USD PER DMT WITH VOLUME OF 164 357 DMT. THIS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TPO AT ALP. THE TPO NOTICED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER TWO INTERNATIO NAL TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE CHARGED COMMISSION AT A LOWER RATE. IN SUCH FIRST TRANSACTION WITH SINOSTEEL INTE RNATIONAL HOLDING CO. LTD., THE COMMISSION WAS CHARGED @ $ 0 .15 PER DMT WITH VOLUME OF 1844150 DMT AND IN THE OTHER TRANSACTION WITH CHINA SINOSTEEL PVT. LTD. (SINGAPO RE), THE ASSESSEE CHARGED COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF $0.33/W MT WITH VOLUME OF 33,000 WMT. THE TPO DETERMINED ALP I N RESPECT OF THESE TWO TRANSACTIONS BY APPLYING THE R ATE OF COMMISSION AT $ 0.50 PER DMT, BEING THE RATE AT W HICH COMMISSION WAS CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SIMCO, 4 BEING THE INTERNAL COMPARABLE CASE; AND FROM TOP RESOURCES HONG KONG LTD., BEING THE EXTERNAL COMPAR ABLE CASE. THIS LED TO THE PROPOSAL FOR TP ADJUSTMENT AT RS.2,87,72,311/-. THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNSUCCESSFU L BEFORE THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL (DRP), WHICH UP HELD THE TP ADJUSTMENT AND RESULTANTLY THE ADDITION FOR SUCH AMOUNT WAS MADE BY THE AO IN THE FINAL ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE SHAPE OF A QUOTATION GIVEN BY JYOTI ENTERPRISES, ORISSA TO THE ASSESSEES HOLDING COMPA NY WHICH INDICATED REDUCING RATE OF COMMISSION WITH TH E INCREASE IN VOLUME. THE TRIBUNAL REMITTED THE MATTE R TO THE DRP FOR CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENTLY DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE DRP VI DE ITS ORDER DATED 25.11.2011 CAME TO HOLD THAT THE QUOTAT ION OF JYOTI ENTERPRISES WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AND DID NOT ASSIST THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. RESULTANTLY THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED AT THE SAME LEVEL. THE AO VIDE THE IMPUGN ED ORDER UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.2.87 CRORE AS ORIGI NALLY MADE. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SUSTENA NCE OF SUCH ADDITION. 5 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SOLITARY CONTENTIO N OF THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF THE DELETION OF ADDITION BEFOR E US HAS BEEN THAT THE RATE OF COMMISSION CHARGED BY THE ASS ESSEE FROM ITS AES IN RESPECT OF TWO TRANSACTIONS WAS I N ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATE QUOTED BY JYOTI ENTERPRISE S TO SINOSTEEL INTERNATIONAL HOLDING COMPANY LTD. AND H ENCE THE PRICE SO QUOTED SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARA BLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE. THERE IS NO QUARREL OVER THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED CUP METHOD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WERE AT ALP. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THE APPLICATION OF THIS METHOD AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. NOW THE QUESTION WHICH LOOMS L ARGE ON OUR CANVASS FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER A QUOT ATION CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR BENCHMARKING AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION UNDER CUP METHOD ? 5. SECTION 92 (1) PROVIDES THAT ANY INCOME ARI SING FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION SHALL BE COMPUTED HAVI NG REGARD TO THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. SECTION 92C DEAL S WITH THE COMPUTATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE. SUB-SECTIO N (1) 6 PROVIDES THAT : `THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION SHALL BE DETERMINED BY AN Y OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS, BEING THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHO D, HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION OR CLASS OF TRANSACTION OR CLASS OF ASSOCIATED PERSONS OR FUNCT IONS PERFORMED BY SUCH PERSONS OR SUCH OTHER RELEVANT FA CTORS AS THE BOARD MAY PRESCRIBE... IN SO FAR AS THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION IS CONCERNED, THERE HAVE BEEN ENSHRI NED FIVE SPECIFIC METHODS AND THE LAST BEING : `SUCH OTHER M ETHOD AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD. THE MECHANISM FOR COMPUTATION OF ALP UNDER THESE FIVE SPECIFIC METHOD S IS PROVIDED IN RULE 10B(1). THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY CL AIMED ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS AT ALP ON THE BASIS OF THE CUP METHOD, THE WORKING UNDER WHICH HAS BEEN PROVID ED FOR IN CLAUSE(A) OF RULE 10B(1), WHICH READS AS UND ER :- (A) COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE METHOD, BY WHICH, (I) THE PRICE CHARGED OR PAID FOR PROPERTY TRANSFERRED OR SERVICES PROVIDED IN A COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION, OR A NUMBER OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS, IS IDENTIFIED ; 7 (II) SUCH PRICE IS ADJUSTED TO ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENCES, IF ANY, BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND THE COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS OR BETWEEN THE ENTERPRISES ENTERING INTO SUCH TRANSACTIONS, WHICH COULD MATERIALLY AFFECT THE PRICE IN THE OPEN MARKET ; (III) THE ADJUSTED PRICE ARRIVED AT UNDER SUB- CLAUSE (II) IS TAKEN TO BE AN ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED OR SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION ; 6. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ABOVE CLAUSE THAT THE AL P IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED UNDER THREE STEPS WHICH C OVER THREE SUB-CLAUSES. FIRST STEP, AS PROVIDED FOR IN S UB-CLAUSE (I), MANDATES THAT ` THE PRICE CHARGED OR PAID FOR SERVICES PROVIDED IN A COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION S HOULD BE IDENTIFIED. STEP TWO AS PER SUB-CLAUSE (II) PROV IDES FOR MAKING ADJUSTMENT TO ` SUCH PRICE [THAT IS `THE PRICE CHARGED OR PAID AS PER SUB-CLAUSE(I)] ON ACCOUNT O F DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION A ND THE COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION. UNDER STEP THR EE, THE ADJUSTED PRICE ARRIVED AT UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (II) IS TAKEN TO BE AN ALP IN RESPECT OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION. 8 7. THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF LG ELECTRONICS HAS HELD VIDE PARA 22.11 THAT : ` RULE1 0B HAS SPECIFIED A SET PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED FOR DETERM INING THE ALP DISTINCTLY UNDER THE FIVE METHODS. IT IS EQUALL Y NOT PERMISSIBLE TO INVENT A NEW PROCEDURE AND TRY TO FI T SUCH PROCEDURE WITHIN ANY OF THE EXISTING PROCEDURES PRE SCRIBED AS PER THESE METHODS. NO ONE IS AUTHORIZED TO ADD O NE OR MORE NEW STEPS IN THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE OR TO SU BSTITUTE ANY OTHER MECHANISM WITH THE ONE PRESCRIBED UNDER T HE RULE. IT IS NEITHER POSSIBLE TO INVENT A NEW METHOD NOR TO SUBSTITUTE A NEW METHODOLOGY IN PLACE OF THE ONE PRESCRIBED IN THE RULE. ELABORATING FURTHER, IT H AS BEEN HELD IN PARA 23.5 THAT : ONE HAS TO NECESSARILY PASS TH ROUGH THESE STEPS FOR DETERMINING ALP UNDER THE .METHOD. . WHEN THE RULE PRESCRIBES A PARTICULAR METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED AND THE STEPS SO GIVEN ARE UNAMBIGUOUS, IT IS IMPERMISSIBLE TO SUBSTITUTE SUCH STEPS WITH ANY OTH ER MODE. 9 8. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS OF PARAMOUNT IMPOR TANCE TO NOTE THE DIRECTIVE OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 92 C, WHICH PROVIDES THAT :`THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD REFERRE D TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE APPLIED, FOR DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE, IN THE MANNER AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED . THE ESSENCE OF THE PROVISION IS THAT THE ALP SHOULD BE DETERMINED AS PER THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD ` IN THE MANNER AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED . A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSED LEGAL PROVISIONS IN THE LIGHT OF TH E RATIO OF THE SPECIAL BENCH ORDER, IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE AL P UNDER THE CUP METHOD CAN BE DETERMINED WITH THE STARTING POINT OF `THE PRICE CHARGED OR PAID IN A COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION AS PER SUB-CLAUSE (I). IT IS THIS PRICE WHICH IS ADJUSTED TO ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENCES UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (II). THE NITTY-GRITTY OF SUB-CLAUSE (I) IS THAT THERE SHOULD FIRSTLY BE AVAILABLE SOME ` PRICE CHARGED OR PAID TO START WITH THE PROCEDURE AS PER THIS CLAUSE. WHEN THE STATUTE READ WITH RULES SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE ALP UNDER THE CUP METHOD SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY CONSIDERING ` THE PRICE CHARGED OR PAID IN A COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED ` TRANSACTION , WE FAIL TO COMPREHEND AS TO HOW ANY 10 `QUOTATION WHICH HAS NOT FRUCTIFIED INTO A ` TRANSACTION CAN BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE ACTUAL PRICE CHARGED OR PAID IN A TRANSACTION. AS THE LAW PROVIDES FOR CONSIDERING THE PRICE CHARGED OR PAID IN A COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION , THERE CAN BE NO SCOPE FOR CONSIDERING A QUOTATION P RICE IN ISOLATION WHICH IS NOT PRECEDED WITH OR SUCCEEDED B Y ANY ACTUAL TRANSACTION. 9. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS ONLY THIS QUOTATION WHICH HAS BEEN PRESSED INTO SERVICE BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO BRING HOME THE POI NT THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION WAS AT ALP. ON A PER TINENT QUERY, THE LD. AR CANDIDLY ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH HIM TO INDICATE THE ACTUAL RATE OF COMMISSION CHARGED BY JYOTI ENTERPRISES FROM SIMILA R UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS EITHER WITH THE ASSESSEE S HOLDING COMPANY OR ANY OTHER THIRD PARTY. IN FACT, THE MATT ER ENDED WITH THE QUOTATION FROM THIS CONCERN TO THE ASSESSE ES HOLDING COMPANY. THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO INDICATE T HAT THE ASSESSEES HOLDING COMPANY ACTUALLY AVAILED ANY SUC H SERVICES FROM SUCH CONCERN. AS SUCH, WE ARE UNABLE TO 11 ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE RATE AS PER THIS QUOTA TION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS `THE PRICE CHARGED OR PAID U NDER THE CUP METHOD. THIS CONTENTION, BEING BEREFT OF ANY FO RCE DESERVES TO BE AND IS HEREBY GIVEN THE FATE OF REJE CTION. 10. HAVING HELD THAT THE BARE QUOTATION PRICE CANN OT BE ACCEPTED UNDER THE CUP METHOD FOR THE PURPOSES OF BENCHMARKING, WE STILL NEED TO FIND OUT IF THERE IS ANY FURTHER SCOPE FOR ALLOWING RELIEF ON THE BASIS OF S OME RATIONALITY FOR LOWER RATE OF COMMISSION ON THE INC REASED VOLUME, AS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR. WE FIND SOME VIGOR IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILIT Y OF REDUCTION IN THE RATE OF COMMISSION WITH THE INCREA SE IN VOLUME. BUT THIS RULE IS NOT ABSOLUTE. IT MAY OR MA Y NOT TURN OUT TRUE. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE EXTA NT CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED COMMISSION AT THE SAME R ATE OF $.50 PER DMT FROM ITS SIMCO WITH THE VOLUME OF 1,64,357 DMT AND FROM TOP RESOURCES HONG KONG LTD WITH THE VOLUME OF 40,418 DMT. THERE IS NO VARIATIO N IN THE RATE OF COMMISSION DESPITE THE FACT THE VOLUME IS ALMOST FOUR TIMES IN TRANSACTION WITH ITS AE. HOWEVER, AS OBSERVED 12 EARLIER, THE POSSIBILITY OF LOWER RATE OF COMMISSIO N WITH MUCH INCREASED VOLUME CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RATE OF COMMISSION DECREAS ED WITH MUCH HIGHER VOLUME COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO A LOGIC AL CONCLUSION BY SUBSTANTIATING WITH THE LOWER RATE OF COMMISSION CHARGED IN SOME UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION WITH HIGHER VOLUME. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT IN SOME OTHER COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION, THE RATE OF SUCH COMMISSI ON SUFFERED A DIP WITH THE INCREASE IN TURNOVER. 11. THIS FACT CAN NOT BE LOST SIGHT OF THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH THE TRANSFER PRICING PROVISIONS, WHICH FALL UN DER THE CHAPTER X. THE MARGINAL NOTE OF THIS CHAPTER IS : ` SPECIAL PROVISION RELATING TO AVOIDANCE OF TAX. THE ONUS PROBANDI UNDER THIS CHAPTER TO PROVE THAT THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IS AT ALP IS ON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WOR THWHILE TO NOTE THAT THERE IS A DEPARTURE UNDER SUCH PROVISION FROM THE NORMAL PROVISIONS IN THE SENSE THAT HERE IT IS THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE PRICE CHARGED IS A T ALP AND NOT VICE VERSA . THE ASSESSEE HAS TO FACE THE MUSIC IF IT FAILS 13 TO PROVE SO. SUCH A BURDEN CAN BE DISCHARGED BY PO SITIVELY DEMONSTRATING AND PROVING WITH THE HELP OF SOME COMPARABLE CASES THAT THE PRICE CHARGED OR PAID IN AN INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION IS AT ALP. IF THE ASSESS EE DOES NOT BRING ON RECORD ANY COMPARABLE CASE TO INDICATE THA T THE PRICE CHARGED IN ANOTHER COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION SHOULD BE DIFFERED, THEN THE PRICE SO C HARGED OR PAID IN THE GIVEN COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTI ON HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS ALP. 12. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CAS E, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CHARGED COMMISSION FROM SIMCO AS WELL AS SOME THIRD PARTY AT $ 0.50 PER DMT. SUCH RATE, U NLESS SHOWN WITH THE HELP OF SOME OTHER COMPARABLE CASE T O BE NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER TWO INTERNAT IONAL TRANSACTIONS BECAUSE OF DIFFERENT VOLUME, CANNOT BE IGNORED. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT UNDE R THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS ONLY THIS RATE OF COMMI SSION, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (I) OF RULE 10B(1)(A), BEING THE PRICE CHARGED FOR SERVIC ES PROVIDED IN A COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION. WE 14 THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE FUL LY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION AT THIS LEVEL. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/12/2013. SD/- SD/- ( A. D. JAIN ) (R. S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 13/12/2013 *AK VERMA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR 15 DATE INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 09-12- 2013 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11-12- 2013 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 11-12-13 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 13/12/13 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 13/12/13 PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *