2017 (4) TMI 266 - HC - Customs

Respondents to the appeal - the applicants had submitted representations to the Designated Authority and were an integral part of the investigation, whether the applicants can be said to be necessary parties to the captioned petitions? - 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 - 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:
1. Application seeking intervention in writ petitions.
2. Determining necessary and proper parties in the proceedings.
3. Interpretation of relevant legal provisions for joining respondents in appeals.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to applications seeking intervention in captioned writ petitions. The applicants wished to be impleaded as respondents in the ongoing proceedings.

2. The court considered the arguments presented by both sides. The applicants contended that they were integral to the investigation and adjudication before the Designated Authority, thus asserting their status as necessary and proper parties in the case.

3. On the contrary, the opposing party, represented by Senior Advocate S.N. Soparkar, argued against the applications. They claimed that the petitions challenged the final findings and the procedure followed by the Designated Authority, emphasizing that the determination of compliance with natural justice principles rested with the Designated Authority.

4. The court analyzed the facts and found that the subject matter under challenge in the petitions were the final findings of the Designated Authority under Rule 17 of the Anti-dumping Rules, 1995. The judgment highlighted the appeal process to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the rules regarding who may be joined as respondents.

5. Referring to Rule 5, the court noted that interested persons who had submitted representations to the Designated Authority during the investigation were required to be joined as respondents. Considering that the applicants had actively participated in the investigation by submitting representations, the court deemed them necessary parties to the petitions.

6. Consequently, the applications were allowed, permitting Saint Gobain India Private Limited and Detergent Manufacturers Association of India to be joined as respondents in the respective writ petitions. The court made the ruling absolute with no order as to costs, directing the necessary amendments to the cause title of each writ petition and instructing the registry to disseminate copies of the order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment encompasses the issues raised, the arguments presented by the parties involved, and the court's interpretation of the relevant legal provisions to determine the status of the applicants as necessary parties in the ongoing proceedings.