TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 1834
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ( in short Act of 1975) had imposed an anti-dumping duty @ 331.10 USD per metric tone in respect of imports of melamine made from Peoples' Republic of China, either as a country of origin or as a country of export. By the other Notification dated 06.10.2017 certain anti-dumping duties were imposed on the import of melamine from certain countries other than from the Peoples' Republic of China. 4. In respect of the Notification dated 06.10.2017, it is stated by Mr. B Sarma, learned counsel for the Customs Department that by a subsequent Notification of 19.03.2018, the imposition of anti-dumping duty for import of melamine from countries other than the Peoples' Republic of China has been withdrawn in the meantime. 5. The imposition of anti-dumping duties is provided under Section 9A of the Act of 1975 where Section 9A(5) thereof provides that the anti-dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition. It is further provided that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of du....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fically stated in their application and the Designated Authority upon application of its mind on its confidentiality, pass their order thereupon. In the event, such exercise is not undertaken, a prima facie view is that Rule 6(7) would prevail and the evidence presented to the Designated Authority by one interested party shall be provided to the other interested party. 8. In the instant case, the Notification dated 28.01.2016 imposing anti-dumping duty @ 331.10 USD per metric ton for melamine imported from Peoples' Republic of China has been assailed by the writ petitioner on the ground that neither any material was available before the Central Government nor was there any determination as to what should be the anti-dumping duty and as such the imposition of anti-dumping duty @331.10 USD is arbitrary and without any basis. A further contention is that the anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed at a fixed rate of 331.10 USD per metric ton for a period of 5(five) years and, secondly, such duty can be imposed only in the Indian currency and not on the basis of USD. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this present application has been filed by the applicant M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dumping duty @ 331.10 USD per metric ton has been imposed for imports of melamine from the Peoples' Republic of China. As indicated, Section 9A of the Act of 1975 provides for imposition of anti-dumping duty by the Central Government in the event it arrives at a conclusion that an exporter or producer from any country or territory is exporting any goods into India at a price less than its normal value. Further Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995 provides the procedure that the initiation of the investigation by the Designated Authority be done only upon the receipt of the written application on behalf of the domestic industry. 12. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995 enjoins the domestic industry a legal right to make an application to initiate an investigation by the Designated Authority and in doing so also to assist the Designated Authority with all relevant materials to arrive at a just and proper determination as regards the desirability imposing an anti-dumping duty and if yes, as to what should be the amount of anti-dumping duty to be imposed. But the scheme of the Rules of 1995 is that it is the Designated Authority who shall make the recommendation to the Central Government and the Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness.' 16. Further from the touchstone of the established law as regards the determination of a necessary party, as to whether a question cannot be eventually and completely settled unless he is a party or as to whether the order to be passed cannot be given effect in the absence of such party, also, it cannot be accepted that the issue raised in the writ petition at hand, cannot be effectually decided or the order to be passed to have its effect, without the applicant being a respondent. 17. Further the law in respect of a necessary party has also been settled by the Supreme Court in its pronouncement in Deputy Commr., Hardoi, in charge Court of Wards, Bharawan Estate v. Rama Krishna Narain and others reported in AIR 1953 S.C. 521 (Vol. 40. C.N. 131) wherein, in paragraph 14 it has been held as under:- 14. ".... The dispute relates to title to property and according to all principles of impleading of parties it is not the eventual benefit that a person may derive from a certain decision that is the crucial test in deciding whether a part is a n....