Court directs reconsideration of anti-dumping application, finding rejection illegal.

The court set aside the office memorandum rejecting the application for an anti-dumping investigation, directing the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's applications. The court found the rejection was illegal and failed to consider evidence submitted by the petitioner, concluding that the products in question were "like articles." The respondent was instructed to evaluate the information in accordance with the law and pass appropriate orders within one month. The writ petition was allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the office memorandum rejecting the application for anti-dumping investigation.
2. Definition and interpretation of "domestic industry" and "like article" under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Rules.
3. Whether the petitioner had the standing to request an anti-dumping investigation for products not produced by them but considered like articles.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Office Memorandum:
The petitioner challenged the office memorandum dated 07.06.2017, issued by the 2nd respondent, which rejected their application for initiating an anti-dumping investigation. The petitioner argued that the memorandum was "ex facie illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping duty on Dumped Article and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995." The court found that the 2nd respondent failed to consider the voluminous material and evidence submitted by the petitioner, including the interchangeable use of the products and their classification as substitute products. The court held that the 2nd respondent's decision was made in a "mechanical manner" and was "alien to the language employed in Rule 2(d) of the Rules."

2. Definition and Interpretation of "Domestic Industry" and "Like Article":
The petitioner argued that they constituted a "domestic industry" under Rule 2(b) of the Rules and that the products in question (2-EH, INA, and 2-PH) were "like articles" under Rule 2(d). The court noted that the definitions under these rules were crucial for determining whether the petitioner had the standing to request an anti-dumping investigation. The court emphasized that "like article" includes not only identical products but also those with closely resembling characteristics. The 2nd respondent had previously determined in a notification that Isononanol (INA) and 2-Ethyl Hexanol (2-EH) were like articles, which supported the petitioner's claim.

3. Standing to Request Anti-dumping Investigation:
The petitioner argued that they were entitled to request an anti-dumping investigation for products not produced by them but considered like articles. The court found that the 2nd respondent's rejection of the petitioner's application on the ground that they did not produce INA and 2-PH was contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The court highlighted that the petitioner had provided substantial evidence showing that these products were interchangeable and used as substitutes, thus meeting the criteria for "like articles." The court concluded that the 2nd respondent should have initiated the investigation based on the material provided by the petitioner.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned office memorandum dated 07.06.2017 and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the petitioner's applications dated 18.10.2016 and 02.12.2016. The 2nd respondent was instructed to evaluate the entire information in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, particularly Rules 2(b) and 2(d), and to pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of receipt of the court's order. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

---