The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to intervene in the categorization and investigation process governed by Rule 17(3) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, (Oral) J. -

CM Nos.39168-69/2022

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 12894/2022 & CM No. 39167/2022[Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking interim relief]

2. Issue notice to the respondents.

3. Mr Ravi Prakash accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2, while Mr Pragyan Pradip Sharma accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos.3 to 5, i.e., the representatives of the domestic industry.

4. Counsel for the respondents say that they do not wish to file counter-affidavits in the matter. 4.1. Furthermore, counsel for the parties state that the writ petition can be taken up for final hearing and disposal, at this stage itself.

5. This writ petition is directed against the disclosure statement dated 29.08.2022. In effect, the petitioner seeks a direction that the petitioner's categorization as 'non-cooperative' should be set aside.

6. Before we proceed further it is relevant to note that that the petitioner was formerly known as Sandvik Materials Technology (China) Co. Limited.

7. Mr Gopal Jain, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, says that information has been sought by the Designated Authority (DA) from the Indian company, i.e., Sandvik Materials Technology India Private Limited [hereafter referred to as 'SMTIL'], which has no role to play in the investigation carried out by the DA.

7.1 In particular, in support of this plea, our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 82 and 83 of the aforementioned disclosure statement. For the sake of convenience, the said paragraphs are extracted hereafter:

'Export price for Sandvik Materials Technology (China) Co., Ltd.

82. The response filed by Sandvik Materials Technology (China) Co., Ltd., shows that the company imports product under consideration from its related entities and undertakes cold-drawn process on the same. The finished product is then sold in the home market as well as exported to India. The producers of the hot-rolled products have not participated in the present investigation. Since Sandvik Materials Technology (China) Co., Ltd., cannot be considered as a producer of product under consideration and the producers of intermediate product (hot-rolled product) have not participated in the present investigation, individual duties cannot be granted to Sandvik Materials Technology (China) Co., Ltd.

83. Further, on analysis of response filed by the exporter, the Authority noted that that the quantity of exports reported by the exporter did not match the Indian customs data. The Authority issued a letter dated 17th August 2022, providing an opportunity to the exporter to clarify the same. The Authority additionally sorted information with regards to Sandvik materials Technology India Private Limited and its role in the sales process of the exporter. However, the Authority has not received any response from the exporter and accordingly, proposes to hold that the response filed by the exporter cannot be accepted.' [Emphasis is ours]

7.2. It is, thus, contended by Mr Jain that because the petitioner has been categorized as 'non-cooperative', it has been put under residuary head for imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD).

8. Mr Jain also submits that, in the event, the DA chooses to recommend imposition of ADD, it has to be crystallized vis-a-vis 'each known exporter or producer' of the article under consideration.

8.1. In this behalf, Mr Jain has referred to Rule 17(3) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti- Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury), Rules 1995 [hereafter referred to as 1995 Rules'].

8.2. This apart, Mr Jain says that the petitioner has received the purported transaction data almost at the eleventh hour. According to him, the transaction data was submitted to the petitioner only on 05.09.2022, albeit, after 5 P.M.

9. Mr Ravi Prakash, who appears on behalf of the official respondents, i.e., respondent nos.1 and 2, says that no intercession in the ma