2022 (9) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM Nos.39168-69/2022 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 12894/2022 & CM No.39167/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief] 2. Issue notice to the respondents. 3. Mr Ravi Prakash accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, while Mr Pragyan Pradip Sharma accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.3 to 5, i.e., the representatives of the domestic industry. 4. Counsel for the respondents say that they do not wish to file counter-affidavits in the matter. 4.1. Furthermore, counsel for the parties state that the writ petition can be taken up for final hearing and disposal, at this stage itself. 5. This writ petition is directed agains....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d product) have not participated in the present investigation, individual duties cannot be granted to Sandvik Materials Technology (China) Co., Ltd. 83. Further, on analysis of response filed by the exporter, the Authority noted that that the quantity of exports reported by the exporter did not match the Indian customs data. The Authority issued a letter dated 17th August 2022, providing an opportunity to the exporter to clarify the same. The Authority additionally sorted information with regards to Sandvik materials Technology India Private Limited and its role in the sales process of the exporter. However, the Authority has not received any response from the exporter and accordingly, proposes to hold that the response filed by the expor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 5, i.e., the respondents who represent the domestic industry, supports the submissions made by Mr Prakash. 10.1 It is also Mr Sethi's contention that, at this juncture, this Court need not intervene the process set in motion by the DA. In this regard, Mr Sethi referred to various provisions of the 1995 Rules. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The concern of the petitioner is that the DA, for the purposes for the investigation has, inter alia taken steps to gather information from SMTIL, which, according to Mr Jain, is a process that is not contemplated under the 1995 Rules. 12.1 The petitioner is apprehensive, that if SMTIL were to not furnish the information, then the consequences of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to consider the information supplied by the petitioner and thereafter conclude one way or the other as to whether or not the petitioner ought to be categorized as "non-cooperative". 16.2 The facts concerning this aspect of the matter, will obviously, have to find mention in the final recommendation made by the DA. 16.3 Furthermore, as indicated above, as to whether or not the DA has any jurisdiction over the Indian company/SMTIL is also an aspect which the DA will have to deliberate on, while returning a final finding under Rule 17 of the 1995 Rules. 16.4 The DA will bear in mind the observations made hereinabove while returning a final finding under Rule 17 of the 1995 Rules. 17. At this stage, Mr Jain says that since the purported tr....