Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

Harsha Devani, J. (Oral)—Since the relief claimed in all these applications is similar, the same were taken up for hearing together.

Heard Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned advocate for the applicant in Civil Application Nos. 11970/2016 to 11972/2016 and Mr. Hardik Modh, learned advocate for the applicant in Civil Application No. 11986/2016.

Issue rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent authorities and Mr. Gaurav Mathur and Mr. Kuntal Parikh, learned advocates waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the private respondents/original petitioners in each of the applications.

By these applications, the applicants seek to be permitted to intervene/be impleaded as respondents in the captioned writ petitions.

Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned advocate for the applicant in Civil Application Nos. 11970/2016 to 11972/2016 and Mr. Hardik Modh, learned advocate for the applicant in Civil Application No. 11986/2016 state that the applicants are interested parties as contemplated under Section 2(c) of the CEGAT (Countervailing Duty and Anti-dumping Duty) Procedure Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). 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.

Opposing the applications, Mr. Gaurav Mathur and Mr. Kuntal Parikh, learned advocates for the original petitioners, submitted that the petitions are not only challenging the final findings issued by the Designated Authority but also procedure followed by the Designated Authority, as being violative of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that as to whether or not the principles of natural justice have been complied with is for the Designated Authority to reply and hence, the applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties in the captioned petitions.

This court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties.

From the facts as emerging from the record, it is apparent that what is subject matter of challenge in the captioned petitions are the final findings of the Designated Authority under Rule 17 of the Anti-dumping Rules, 1995. Upon publication of the final findings by the Designated Authority, the Central Government may issue a notification in the Official Gazette. Against such notification issued by the Central Government, appeal lies to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 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.

The applications therefore, succeed and are accordingly allowed. The applicant in Civil Application Nos. 11970/2016, 11971/2016 and 11972/2016 Saint-Gobain India Private Limited, is permitted to be joined as a respondent in Special Civil Application Nos. 16427/2016, 16428/2016 and 16429/2016 and the applicant in Civil Application No. 11986/2016 - Hindustan Unilever Ltd., is permitted to be joined as a respondent in Special Civil Application No. 16426/2016. Rule is made absolute accordingly in each of the applications with no order as to costs.

The cause title of each of the writ petitions to be amended accordingly.

Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in each matter.