2017 (4) TMI 141 - HC - Customs

Permission to intervene/be impleaded as respondents in the captioned writ petitions - It was submitted that the applicants were an integral part of the investigation and adjudication before the Designated Authority and that therefore, they are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings before this Court - Held that - Rule 5 of the Rules makes provision for procedure for filing appeals and who may be joined as respondents. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 enumerates the persons who are required to be joined as respondents to the appeal. The category of persons under clause (c) thereof is Interested persons who submitted representations to the designated authority in the course of investigation . In these circumstances, having regard to the fact that in the present case, the applicants had submitted representations to the Designated Authority and were an integral part of the investigation, the applicants can be said to be necessary parties to the captioned petitions - application allowed - decided in favor of applicant.

Summary

Issues:
Application for intervention in writ petitions challenging final findings of Designated Authority under Anti-dumping Rules, 1995.

Analysis:
The applicants sought permission to intervene or be impleaded as respondents in writ petitions challenging the final findings of the Designated Authority under the Anti-dumping Rules, 1995. The applicants claimed to be interested parties as per Section 2(c) of the CEGAT Procedure Rules, 1996, stating their involvement in the investigation and adjudication before the Designated Authority. On the other hand, the original petitioners contended that the petitions not only challenged the final findings but also the procedure followed by the Designated Authority, alleging violation of natural justice principles. They argued that the Designated Authority should address the compliance with natural justice principles, making the applicants unnecessary parties in the petitions.

The court examined the submissions from both sides and reviewed the facts presented. It noted that the subject matter of challenge in the petitions pertained to the final findings of the Designated Authority under Rule 17 of the Anti-dumping Rules, 1995. The court highlighted that the Central Government could issue a notification based on these findings, allowing appeals to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Rule 5 of the Rules specified the procedure for filing appeals and joining respondents, including interested persons who had submitted representations during the investigation. Considering that the applicants had submitted representations and were integral to the investigation, the court deemed them necessary parties to the petitions.

Consequently, the court allowed the applications, permitting Saint-Gobain India Private Limited and Hindustan Unilever Ltd. to be joined as respondents in the respective writ petitions. The court made the rules absolute in each application, with no order as to costs. It directed the cause title of each writ petition to be amended accordingly and instructed the registry to place a copy of the order in each matter for compliance.