Point of Law: It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies Authority/Court, that he falls within category of aggrieved persons.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant Interlocutory Application has been preferred by the applicant herein seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.08.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby WP(C) No. 6568/2017 preferred by the respondent no. 1 herein was disposed of with certain directions. The appellant herein is concerned with the direction given in paragraph 169 of the judgment, which reads as follows:

“169. In any view of the matter we may also add that if the confidentiality clause under Rule 7 would be applicable in respect of the information provided in the application by the domestic industry under Rule 5(1), the same cannot be stretched to the extent that even the determination by the designated authority as regards the normal value or the export price or the margin of dumping or even the non-injurious price of the domestic industry shall remain confidential to the extent that it will not be revealed at all to any one at any stage, but the ADD would be imposed. As already interpreted Clause 16 requires that the designated authority before giving its final findings to inform all interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which form the basis of its decision. The essential facts in our view would constitute those facts which forms the basis of the decision that the designated authority may arrive at, where such decision would also include the decision to impose the ADD and the determination of the essential parameters thereof i.e. the normal value, export value and margin of dumping or even the non-injurious price.

We may again add that the requirement of Rule 16 are not subjected to the confidentiality clause of Rule 7, where although Rule 7 begins with a non-obstante clause, but such provision being not notwithstanding to relate only to Rule 6(2), 6(3), 6(7), 12(2), 14(4) and 17(4) and the non-obstante provision does not include Rule 16.”

3. Mr. Pragyan P. Sharma, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel representing the applicant contended that the process for imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on the respondent on import of Melamine was initiated on the complaint of the applicant. It was thus contended that the applicant is indisputably a person aggrieved in the matter. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the direction given by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 169 of the impugned judgment (supra) to inform the interested party, i.e. the writ petitioner of the essential facts under consideration, which formed the basis of the decision to impose ADD, would directly infringe 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 (for short “1955 Rules”). He thus urged that the denial of right to file an appeal against the impugned judgment would imply that the confidentiality of the information supplied by the applicant to the designated authority would be impinged at the same time, denying the right to seek legal remedy to the applicant herein. Mr. Sarmah submitted that as per the language of Rule 7, in case the informer, which in the present case is the applicant herein, objects to the disclosure of the information and the designated authority, after due consideration feels that the information/part of the information is essential to be supplied, then, at best, it may entail into drawing of adverse inference against the informer but indisputably no part of the information supplied can be provided without the consent of the informer. He urged that the designated authority has ruled in favour of the applicant that the entire information provided by the applicant is confidential and, as a consequence, the direction given by the learned Single Judge to provide material extracts of the information to the writ petitioner would clearly mean that the right of