2023 (6) TMI 1095 - HC - Customs

Rejection of application seeking leave to file appeal - Levy of ADD - import of Melamine - legal right flows in favour of the domestic industry (applicant herein) so as to implead it as a party in the writ proceedings - Applicant is aggrieved person or not - HELD THAT - The applicant may have provided the information which led to the initiation of the enquiry for determination of the ADD, but merely the fact that the information provided by the applicant led to initiation of the proceeding for imposition of ADD by itself would not imply that the applicant is a person aggrieved in this case - Hon ble Supreme Court in AYAAUBKHAN NOORKHAN PATHAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA OTHERS 2013 (8) TMI 563 - SUPREME COURT has taken an affirmative view that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any judicial proceedings unless the court is satisfied that such person/entity falls within the category of aggrieved person , who has suffered legal injury and is entitled to challenge the effect/action of the order in the court of law. It was further observed that the court can enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. In view of observations of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan, it is opined that by any stretch of imagination the applicant cannot be treated to be a person aggrieved, who has suffered a legal injury by the direction of learned Single Bench to disclose the numerical values from the complaint filed by the applicant to the competent authority - accepting the instant application seeking leave to file appeal would tantamount to granting more leverage to the applicant than what was allowed in the original writ proceedings which is absolutely unwarranted. The instant application seeking leave to file appeal is devoid of merit and, hence the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the applicant can be considered a "person aggrieved."
2. Whether the confidentiality clause under Rule 7 of the 1955 Rules is applicable to the essential facts forming the basis of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) decisions.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the applicant can be considered a "person aggrieved."

The court examined whether the applicant, who provided information leading to the initiation of the Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) proceedings, qualifies as a "person aggrieved." The applicant argued that the direction to disclose essential facts infringes upon the confidentiality clause under Rule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment, and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (1955 Rules). However, the court, referencing the Supreme Court's judgment in *Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.*, concluded that the applicant does not suffer from a legal injury and thus cannot be considered a "person aggrieved." The court emphasized that a "legal right" must be an entitlement arising out of legal rules, and the applicant's psychological or imaginary injury does not suffice.

Issue 2: Whether the confidentiality clause under Rule 7 of the 1955 Rules is applicable to the essential facts forming the basis of ADD decisions.

The applicant contended that the direction to disclose essential facts under Rule 16 breaches the confidentiality clause under Rule 7. The court noted that the learned Single Judge thoroughly evaluated the scheme of Rule 7 and Rule 16 and concluded that the essential facts forming the basis of the decision to impose ADD, including normal value, export value, and margin of dumping, cannot be kept confidential. The court agreed with this interpretation, stating that the requirement of Rule 16 is not subject to the confidentiality clause of Rule 7. The court found that the direction to disclose these parameters is essential for the affected party to seek appropriate legal remedies against the ADD decision.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the application seeking leave to file an appeal, stating that the applicant cannot be treated as a "person aggrieved" and that the direction to disclose essential facts does not breach the confidentiality clause under Rule 7. However, the applicant is at liberty to seek permission for intervention in the writ appeal filed by the respondent. No order as to costs.