$~64

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 12894/2022 & CM Nos.39167-69/2022

ALLEIMA MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY

(JIANGSU) CO LTD

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr

Mayank Jain, Mr Vikram Naik, Ms

Suvarna Kashyap and Mr Harsh

Makhija, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Mr

Farmaan Ali, Ms Vidhi Jain and Ms

Shruti Shivkumar, Advs. for R-1 & 2.

Mr Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr

Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Mr Rajesh

Sharma, Mr Anoop George and Mr

Kartikay Dutta, Advs. for R-3 to 5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

[Physical Court hearing/ Hybrid hearing (as per request)]

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

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,

2022:DHC:3507-DB

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.

2022:DHC:3507-DB

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-à-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 “1995Rules”].

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,

2022:DHC:3507-DB

i.e., respondent nos.1 and 2, says that no