2016 (12) TMI 956 - HC - Customs

Court allows intervention by The All India Glass Manufacturers in Antidumping Rules challenge

ALL INDIA GLASS MANUFACTURERS FEDERATION (AIGMF) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 2

The court allowed the applications for intervention/impleadment by The All India Glass Manufacturers, permitting them to be joined as respondent No.3 in ... Subrule (2) of rule 5 of the CEGAT (Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty) Procedure Rules, 1996 - whether appellant is a party to a captioned petition - Held that: - Subrule (2) of rule 5 enumerates the persons who are required to be joined as respondents to the appeal. The category of persons under clause (b) thereof is “Representative of the domestic industry on whose application investigation was commenced by the designated authority” - in present case, the investigation was commenced on the application of the applicant herein, the applicant can be said to be a necessary party to the captioned petitions - applicant is permitted to be joined as respondent No.3 in each of the captioned writ petitions - application succeeds. Issues:Application for intervention/impleadment in writ petitions challenging final findings and procedure of Designated Authority under Antidumping Rules.Analysis:The judgment involves the consideration of applications filed by The All India Glass Manufacturers (AIGMF) seeking permission to intervene/implead as a respondent in writ petitions challenging the final findings and procedure of the Designated Authority under the Antidumping Rules. The applicant contended that the Designated Authority initiated a review investigation of dumping duty at their request, and all interested parties, including the applicant, participated in the investigation. The applicant argued that since the investigation was initiated based on their request, they are a necessary party in the petitions challenging the final findings. The provisions of rule 5 of the CEGAT (Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty) Procedure Rules, 1996 were highlighted to support the applicant's claim of being a necessary party.On the other hand, the opposing party argued that the petitions not only challenge the final findings but also the procedure followed by the Designated Authority, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. They contended that the Designated Authority should respond to the allegations of non-compliance with natural justice and that the applicant is not a necessary or proper party in the petitions challenging the final findings and procedure.The court considered the submissions from both sides and examined the facts presented in the record. It was observed that the subject matter of challenge in the petitions were the final findings of the Designated Authority under rule 17 of the Antidumping Rules, 1995. The judgment highlighted the appeal process against the final findings, indicating that the applicant, as the party on whose application the investigation was commenced, falls under the category of necessary parties to the petitions as per the provisions of rule 5 of the rules.Consequently, the court allowed the applications for intervention/impleadment, permitting the applicant to be joined as respondent No.3 in each of the writ petitions challenging the final findings and procedure of the Designated Authority under the Antidumping Rules. The court made the rule absolute in each application, with no order as to costs, and directed the registry to amend the causetitle of each writ petition accordingly.