Necessary party in anti-dumping writs: domestic industry applicant entitled to be impleaded in challenge to final findings.

A domestic industry applicant that triggered an anti-dumping investigation had a direct and substantial interest in writ petitions challenging the Designated Authority's final findings under rule 17 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. The statutory scheme contemplated further proceedings against the Central Government's notification under section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and rule 5(2) of the CEGAT Procedure Rules recognised the domestic industry representative as a person to be joined in the appeal. On that basis, the applicant could not be excluded from the proceedings and was entitled to be impleaded as respondent No. 3.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant, at whose instance the anti-dumping investigation was initiated, was a necessary party entitled to be impleaded as a respondent in the writ petitions challenging the final findings of the Designated Authority.

Analysis: The challenge in the writ petitions was to the final findings recorded under rule 17 of the Antidumping Rules, 1995, and the statutory scheme contemplated further proceedings against the notification issued by the Central Government under section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Rule 5(2) of the CEGAT (Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty) Procedure Rules, 1996 recognises the representative of the domestic industry, on whose application the investigation was commenced, as a person to be joined in the appeal. Since the investigation had been commenced on the applicant's request, the applicant had a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter and could not be excluded from the proceedings.

Conclusion: The applicant was a necessary party and was entitled to be impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the writ petitions.

---