Court validates challenge to jurisdiction by Saint Gobain Glass. Interpretation of "domestic industry" rule. Eligibility criteria clarified.

The court held that the writ petition filed by M/s. Saint Gobain Glass India Limited is maintainable, emphasizing the validity of challenging the jurisdiction of the Designated Authority. The court interpreted the term "domestic industry" under Rule 2(b) of the Rules, concluding that the 2010 amendment did not remove the Designated Authority's discretion. Additionally, M/s. DCW Limited, with 4% production, was deemed eligible to maintain an application under the Rules. The judgments allowed W.A. Nos. 193, 194, 189, and 195 of 2012, while dismissing W.A. No. 307 of 2012 and W.A. No. 337 of 2012.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition filed by M/s. Saint Gobain Glass India Limited.
2. Construction of the term "domestic industry" as per Rule 2(b) of the Rules.
3. Validity of the application by M/s. DCW Limited as a domestic producer.

Detailed Analysis:

Point (i): Maintainability of the Writ Petition
The court held that the writ petition filed by M/s. Saint Gobain Glass India Limited is maintainable. The learned Judge reasoned that the very jurisdiction of the Designated Authority in initiating proceedings was challenged, making the writ petition valid despite the preliminary nature of the finding. The court cited the Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Tantia Construction (P) Ltd., emphasizing that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court also noted that an appeal under Section 9C of the Act is only tenable against a final determination, not a preliminary finding, as supported by the Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in Meghani Organics Ltd. v. Union of India.

Point (ii): Construction of the Term "Domestic Industry"
The court examined the definition of "domestic industry" under Rule 2(b) of the Rules, which has undergone various amendments. Initially, the term excluded producers related to exporters or importers of dumped articles. However, the 1999 amendment changed "shall" to "may," giving the Designated Authority discretion to include such producers. The 2010 amendment added the word "only," interpreted by the learned Judge to remove this discretion. The court disagreed, stating that the term "only" should not restrict the Designated Authority's discretion. The court emphasized that the Rules are economic legislation aimed at preventing anti-dumping, aligning with the WTO Agreement, and should be interpreted to allow the Designated Authority discretion. The court cited various judgments, including Grasim Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs and B. Premanand v. Mohan Koikal, to support a purposive and progressive interpretation.

Point (iii): Validity of the Application by M/s. DCW Limited
The court addressed whether M/s. DCW Limited, with only 4% of total production, could maintain an application under the Rules. The learned Judge had construed Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) proviso to mean that M/s. DCW Limited's 4% production should be treated as 100% since it was the only producer. The court agreed, stating that the combined reading of Rule 2(b) and Rule 5(3) proviso supports this interpretation, allowing M/s. DCW Limited to be considered a domestic industry and maintain the application.

Conclusion:
1. The writ petition against the preliminary finding is maintainable.
2. The 2010 amendment to the term "domestic industry" did not remove the discretionary power of the Designated Authority.
3. M/s. DCW Limited is entitled to maintain the application for investigation under the Rules.

Judgments:
- W.A. Nos. 193, 194, 189, and 195 of 2012 are allowed.
- W.A. No. 307 of 2012 is dismissed.
- W.A. No. 337 of 2012 is dismissed.

---