--- ·- 1 I I 50 % 24.03.2009 Present: Mr Rakesh Tikku and Mr Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocates for the Petitioner. \ Mr S.K.Dubey with Mr Deepak Kumar, Advocate for the R-1,2 and 3. Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Advocate with Mr Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for R-4. +CM 3938/2009 * Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(C) 7714/2009 & CM 3937/2009 On the Application of the Petitioner, the Respondent i.e. the Designated Authority constituted under the provisions of Section 9 A of the Customs Tarrif Act, 19 7 5 has passed an order under Rule 5 of Customs Tarrif (identification, assessment and collection of anti-dumping duty of dumped articles and for determination of injuries) Rules, 1995 (in short Rules). This initiation order is dated 21.10.2008 which is assailed in the present petition inter alia on the ground that the Order is ultra vires the provisions of the aforesaid Rules particularly Rule 2(b), in this behalf as it is the contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent No.4 does not constitute domestic industry under Rule 2 (b) of the aforesaid Rules. It is also contended that under the provisions of Rule 2(c) (iii) it will not be an interested party. On these and other grounds such notification dated 21.8.2008 is challenged. Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified --,------------------------------------------·-·----- .. ·-·- :/ It is, however, not in dispute that, at this stage, only initial notification dated 21.10.2008 is issued and under the aforesaid Rules the Designated Authority is to proceed further to determine the existence, degree and effect of the alleged dumping. For this purpose, investigation is to be carried out under Rule 6 which lays down the principle governing investigations. After following this procedure and obtaining full information from the concerned authorities, the Designated Authority has to return its preliminary finding under Rule 12. It is thereafter only the question of levy of provisional duty for the · the final findings would arise. Therefore, at this stage, when the investigation is yet to go on, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner can raise all these issues which are taken up in this petition before the Designated Authority so that Designated Authority applies its mind and decide whether it has the locus to proceed in the matter or not. We expect that the Designated Authority shall consider the objections raised by the Petitioner and dispose of the same by a speaking order. If the contention of the Petitioner is accepted, the natural consequence would be to drop the proceedings and not to carry it further. However, in case, these are rejected it would be open to the designated authority to take up the matter further for investigation. Whether the Designated Authority should decide the ----.:..._ __________ " ________ _ jurisdictional aspects first or alongwith preliminary finding, 1s left to the discretion of the Designated Authority. Writ petition stands disposed of in these terms. Dasti, as prayed for. MARCH 24, 2009 nt A.K. SIKRI, J. 'Z::J, .. RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. /