Harsha Devani, J.

1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in all these petitions, the same were taken up for hearing together and are decided by this common judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts as appearing in Special Civil Application No. 16426 of 2016.

3. This petition has initially been filed challenging the disclosure statement dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure "J" to the petition) issued by the second respondent - designated authority. However, during the pendency of the petition, the final findings came to be issued on 23.09.2016, and hence, an amendment came to be moved which was granted whereby the petitioners were permitted to challenge the final findings. While granting interim relief in the matter, this court by an order dated 13.12.2016 had permitted the first respondent - Union of India to issue a notification under rule 18 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Antidumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules" if it deems so fit. Thereafter a notification dated 21.12.2016 came to be issued under rule 18 of the Antidumping Rules whereby the final findings came to be accepted. The petitioners, thereafter moved another amendment and were granted permission to challenge the notification dated 21.12.2016.

4. The petitioners herein are companies engaged, inter alia, in the business of manufacturing Soda Ash in the State of Gujarat. It is the case of the petitioners that Soda Ash is an industrial produce and its main raw materials are high chemical grade limestone and salt which are available largely in the Saurashtra region of the State of Gujarat. On account of availability of raw materials in this area, major manufacturers of Soda Ash, including the petitioners, have set up their plants in Saurashtra region in the State of Gujarat. Soda Ash is a raw material for the Glass manufacturing industry, Soaps and Detergent industry, Silicate industry and other Sodium based chemical industries.

5. In China PR, European Union, Kenya, Pakistan, Iran, Ukraine, USA (hereinafter referred to as "the Exporting Countries"), the production of Soda Ash is done in large volumes and in any case, much higher than their own domestic consumption. It is the case of the petitioners that surplus capacities with some of the Exporting Countries are higher than the entire Indian demand. Thus, the producers in these countries have a compulsion to export their surplus capacities, even if such exports are at a price lower than the normal price. Since India is a huge market for Soda Ash, the Exporting Countries producers' resorted to dumping Soda Ash in India at prices below the associated normal value, which resulted in dumping and injury to the domestic manufacturers including the petitioners.

6. In this background, representations came to be made on behalf of the petitioners and other industries including the Alkali Manufacturers' Association of India to the designated authority for imposition of anti-dumping duty on exports of Soda Ash from the Exporting Countries. Based on the inquiry conducted by the designated authority, final findings dated 17.2.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "Final Soda Ash notification") came to be issued, whereby Anti-Dumping Duty came to be levied on exports of Soda Ash from the Exporting Countries to India. It is the case of the petitioners that while issuing the Final Soda Ash notification, the second respondent did not consider it fit to include, inter alia, the cost towards freight incurred for Soda Ash while computing the margin of injury for deciding the quantum of anti-dumping duty, though it included the freight cost incurred on the imported product up to the Indian ports. Such non-inclusion of freight came to be challenged by the Alkali Manufacturers' Association of India by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4345 of 2013 before the High Court of Delhi, wherein the cons