Huansheng Photovoltaic (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. And Others vs. Union Of India And Anr.

2022:DHC:1429-DB
$~1, 5 to 18, 22 to 27, 93 and 101
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
5
+ W.P.(C) 1501/2022, CM APPL. 4285/2022
SHANGHAI JA SOLAR TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 &
2.
1
+ W.P.(C) 5801/2022, CM APPL. 17360/2022 (stay)

TRINA SOLAR CO. LTD. AND ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gaurav Duggal and Mr.Sarad
Kumar Sunny, Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC for UOI.
Mr.Sanam Siddiqui, GP with
Ms.Ruchika Joshi, Advs. for UOI.
6
+ W.P.(C) 1609/2022, CM APPLs. 4634/2022 & 4635/2022
JINGAO SOLAR CO. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus
W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 1 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 to
3.
7
+ W.P.(C) 1610/2022, CM APPLs.4638/2022 & 4639/2022
JA SOLAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi,Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 to 3
8
+ W.P.(C) 1679/2022, CM APPL.4825/2022
HEFEI JA SOLAR TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 to
3.

W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 2 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
9
+ W.P.(C) 1680/2022, CM APPL.4827/2022
JA SOLAR (XINGTAI) CO. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 to
3.
10
+ W.P.(C) 1681/2022, CM APPLs.4829/2022 & 4830/2022
JA SOLAR TECHNOLOGY YANGZHOU CO. LTD. .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 to3.

11
+ W.P.(C) 1915/2022, CM APPL.5503/2022
GUANGDONG AIKO SOLAR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY CO LTD
AND OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gaurav Duggal and Mr.Sarad
Kumar Sunny, Advocates

versus
W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 3 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 & 2
12
+ W.P.(C) 1951/2022, CM APPL.5596/2022
YINGLI ENERGY CHINA COMPANY LIMITED AND OTHERS .
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gaurav Duggal and Mr.Sarad
Kumar Sunny, Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Adarsh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav
Mann and Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs.
for R-1 & 2.
13
+ W.P.(C) 2437/2022, CM APPLs.7039/2022 & 7040/2022
HENGDIAN GROUP DMEGC MAGNETICS CO LTD..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gaurav Duggal and Mr.Sarad
Kumar Sunny, Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 & 2
14
+ W.P.(C) 2466/2022, CM APPLs.7095/2022 & 7096/2022
SUZHOU TALESUN SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD. AND
ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gaurav Duggal and Mr.Sarad
Kumar Sunny, Advocates

versus
W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 4 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 &
2.
15
+ W.P.(C) 2482/2022, CM APPLs.7116/2022 & 7117/2022
HUANSHENG PHOTOVOLTAIC (JIANGSU) CO., LTD. AND
OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gaurav Duggal and Mr.Sarad
Kumar Sunny, Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 &
2.
16
+ W.P.(C) 2502/2022, CM APPL.7170/2022, CM APPL.7171/2022
RISEN ENERGY (CHANGZHOU) CO., LTD. AND ORS.
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gaurav Duggal and Mr.Sarad
Kumar Sunny, Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi,Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 &
2.


W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 5 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
17
+ W.P.(C) 2534/2022, CM APPL.7248/2022, CM APPL.7249/2022
TONGWEI SOLAR (CHENGDU) CO., LTD AND OTHERS
..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gaurav Duggal and Mr.Sarad
Kumar Sunny, Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 &
2.
18
+ W.P.(C) 5763/2022, CM APPL. 17259/2022
LONGI SOLAR TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Shiraz Patodia, Mr. Ashish
Singh, Ms. Divya Sharma, Advs .
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr.
Adarsh Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav
Mann and Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs.
for R-1 & 2.
22
+ W.P.(C) 2621/2022, CM APPL. 7544/2022
WUXI SUNTECH POWER CO LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Gaurav Duggal and Mr.Sarad
Kumar Sunny, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi,Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 to
3.
W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 6 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB

23
+ W.P.(C) 3476/2022, CM APPL. 10259/2022, 10260/2022
CANADIAN SOLAR MANUFACTURING CHANGSHU INC
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 to3
24
+ W.P.(C) 3485/2022, CM APPL. 10293/2022, 10294/2022
CANADIAN SOLAR INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 to
3.
25
+ W.P.(C) 3488/2022, CM APPL. 10299/2022, CM APPL. 10300/2022
CANADIAN SOLAR MANUFACTURING (THAILAND)
COMPANY LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 7 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi,Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 to
3.
26
+ W.P.(C) 3491/2022, CM APPL. 10303/2022, CM APPL. 10306/2022
CSI MODULES DAFENG COMPANY LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 to
3.

27
+ W.P.(C) 3494/2022, CM APPL. 10309/2022, CM APPL. 10310/2022
CSI CELLS CO. LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus

W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 8 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 to
3.
93
+ W.P.(C) 2483/2022, CM APPL. 7119/2022, CM APPL. 7118/2022
JIANGSU ZHONGYU PHOTOVOLTAIC TECHNOLOGY CO
LTD & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Gaurav Duggal and Mr.Sarad
Kumar Sunny, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with Mr.
Jitendra Kumar Tripathi,Mr. Adarsh
Kumar Gupta, Mr. Keshav Mann and
Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Advs. for R-1 &
2.
101
+ W.P.(C) 5283/2022 & CM APPL.15760/2022
CANADIAN SOLAR MANUFACTURING VIETNAM COMPANY
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Krishna
Rao, Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Mr. Bhargava
Mansatta, Ms. Anishika Gupta, Mr.
Vinayak Mathur and Mr. Ankit
Sachdeva, Advs.
versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asheesh Jain, CGSC with
Mr.Adarsh Kumar Gupta, Mr Keshav
Mann and Mr. Jitendra Kumar
Tripathi, Adv. for UOI.

W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 9 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
th
% Date of Decision: 19 April, 2022

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J (Oral)
:
1. By way of the present writ petitions, the petitioners seek directions to
the respondents to take their responses to the questionnaires on record and
consider the data comprising of the facts and figures stated therein as well as
the documents and other materials filed along with the said response before
arriving at any finding in the anti-dumping investigation initiated vide
th
Notification dated 15
May, 2021.
2. Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Mr. Gaurav Duggal and Mr. Ashish Singh,

learned counsel for the petitioners state that anti-dumping investigation in
respect of import of solar cells whether or not assembled into
modules/panels originating in or exported from China PR/Thailand and
th
May, 2021 and the
Vietnam were initiated vide notification dated 15
petitioners were asked to file their replies to the questionnaires on or before
th
24
June, 2021. The relevant portion of the Initiation Notification is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
L. Submission of Information
“
20. In view of the special circumstances arising out
of COVID-19 pandemic, all communication should be
sent to the Designated Authority via email at
email addresses
adg11-dgtr@gov.in , adv13-dgtr@gov.in , jd13-
dgtr@gov.in and dd17-dgtr@gov.in . It should be ensured that
the narrative part of the submission is in searchable
W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 10 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
PDF/MS Word format and data files are in MS Excel
format.

M. Time Limit

25. Any information relating to the present investigation
should be sent to the Designated Authority via email at the
email addresses
adg11-dgtr@gov.in, adv13-dgtr@gov.in,jd13-
dgtr@gov.in and dd17-dgtr@gov.in within thirty days from the
date of receipt of the notice as per Rule 6(4) of the Anti-
Dumping Rules. If no information is received within the
prescribed time-limit or the information received is
incomplete, the Authority may record its findings on the
basis of the facts available on record in accordance with the
Rules.

26. All the interested parties are hereby advised to intimate
their interest (including the nature of interest) in the instant
matter and file their questionnaire responses within the
above time limit.”


3. They state that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the replies were delayed
th st
and were filed between 25 June, 2021 and 21
July, 2021.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Initiation
th
May, 2021 was challenged before this Court by an
Notification dated 15
association of importers in Solar Power Developers Association vs. Union
th
of India & Ors. , W.P.(C) 5882/2021 and this Court vide order dated 04
June, 2021 had extended the time limit to file response to the Initiation
Notification. They state that the time limit, so extended, was for the benefit
of all the interested parties and was not restricted only to the petitioners
th
therein. The relevant portion of the order dated 4
June, 2021 passed in
W.P.(C) 5882/2021 is reproduced hereinbelow:-

W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 11 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
“8. In the meanwhile, the time limit provided in paragraph
25 of the impugned notification for furnishing information
shall stand extended to a date beyond the next date of
hearing fixed in this Court.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the aforesaid order
th
dated 4
June, 2021 is an order in rem . They state that this fact is established
beyond doubt as the order itself states that the time limit provided in Para 25
of the Initiation Notification for filing information stands extended.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further state that the respondents
have the power to condone delay in filing responses to the questionnaires if
sufficient cause is shown. In support of their contention, they rely on Rule
6(4) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of
Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury)
Rules, 1995 (for short ‘Anti Dumping Rules’). The relevant portion of the
said Rule is reproduced hereinbelow:
“RULE 6. Principles governing investigations. -
(1) The designated authority shall, after it has decided to initiate
investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any
alleged dumping of any article, issue a public notice notifying its
decision and such public notice shall, inter alia, contain adequate
information on the following :-
(i) the name of the exporting country or countries and the
article involved;
(ii) the date of initiation of the investigation;
(iii) the basis on which dumping is alleged in the application;
(iv) a summary of the factors on which the allegation of injury
is based;
(v) the address to which representations by interested parties
should be directed; and
(vi) the time-limits allowed to interested parties for making
their views known.
W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 12 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

(4) The designated authority may issue a notice calling for any
information, in such form as may be specified by it, from the
exporters, foreign producers and other interested parties and such
information shall be furnished by such persons in writing within thirty
days from the date of receipt of the notice or within such extended
period as the designated authority may allow on sufficient cause
being shown.”

7. They further state that the respondents have granted extension of time
to file responses to the questionnaires in all the other twenty nine anti-
dumping investigation initiated on imports from China PR during the period
st st
01 January, 2020 to 31
September, 2021 which is evident from the table
below:-

W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 13 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
8. They also state that repeated extensions have been granted to file
responses to questionnaires in anti-dumping investigations on imports from
China PR. The tabular chart referred to by learned counsel for the parties is
reproduced hereinbelow:-

the period of limitation in Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation,
Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 .

10. Per contra , Mr. Asheesh Jain, learned counsel for the respondents

states that the decision of this Court in Solar Power Developers Association
(supra) was an order in personam and not an order in rem. He draws this
Court’s attention to the respondent’s letter and clarification rejecting
th
petitioners request for extension of time. The respondent’s letters dated 24
th
June, 2021 and 16
December, 2021 are reproduced hereinbelow:-



W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 14 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
th
A. Letter dated 24 June, 2021

“F.No. 6/56/2020-DGTR
Government of India
Ministry of Commerce and Industry
Department of Commerce
(Directorate General of Trade Remedies)
th
4 Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001

th
Dated: 24 June, 2021

Subject:- Extension for filing of responses in Anti-Dumping
Investigation concerning imports of ‘Solar cells whether or not
assembled into modules or panels’ originating in or exported from
China PR, Thailand and Vietnam initiated on 15.05.2021.

Reference subject above. The Authority has received requests from
several interested parties, who are not petitioners before the Hon’ble
High Court, drawing attention of the Authority to the order of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Solar Power Developers Association vs.
Union of India (W.P.(C) 5882/2021), dated 04.06.2021.

2. The Authority keeping in view the factual matrix of this original
investigation has not deemed it appropriate to extend the last date for
filing of responses except for the specific relief granted by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

Sd/
Garima Kapoor
Deputy Director”
th
B. Letter dated 16 December, 2021
“F. No. 6/56/2020-DGTR
Government of India
Ministry of Commerce & Industry
Department of Commerce
Directorate General of Trade Remedies
th
4 Floor, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi

th
Dated: 16
December 2021

Subject - Clarification regarding acceptance of questionnaire
responses filed beyond the stipulated time for filing of responses in
W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 15 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
Anti-Dumping Investigation concerning imports of ‘Solar Cells
Whether or Not Assembled into Modules or Panels’ originating in or
exported from China PR, Thailand and Vietnam initiated on 15th May
2021.
A number of interested parties have requested the Authority to accept
the delayed responses during the oral hearing held on 17th November
2021. This clarification is in response to those submissions.

2. The Authority initiated an anti-dumping investigation concerning
‘solar cells whether or not assemble into modules or panels’ vide an
th
initiation notification dated 15 May 2021. The Authority had granted
th
time to file questionnaire responses by 24 June 2021. On receipt of
request for extension of the said timelines from other interested
parties, the Authority did not extend the timeline to file the
questionnaire responses. The Authority noted that the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi granted extended time to file responses only to the
petitioners before them. A clarification was issued with respect to the
th
same on the DGTR’s official website on 24
June 2021. Despite the
same several parties did not file the response in time.

3. The Authority has decided to consider only those questionnaire
responses which were filed within the stipulated time. However, the
legal submissions made by all the interested parties who registered
and file the same in time has been considered. The status of
questionnaire responses (considered/ not considered) by the Authority
are mentioned in the Annexure.

Garima Kapoor
(Deputy Director)”

11. He further states that Rule 17 of Anti Dumping Rules provides that
the Designated Authority “shall”, within one year from the date of initiation
of an investigation, determine as to whether or not the article under
investigation is being dumped in India. He further states that the first proviso
to Rule 17 permits the extension of period of one year only in special
circumstances leaving it to the discretion of the Central Government to
W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 16 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
extend the time limit for a maximum period of six months. He also states
that the Rules provide for extension of timeline for acceptance of responses
only if “sufficient reason” is provided for the same which was not the case
in the present matters. He emphasises that similarly placed parties had filed
their responses to the questionnaires within the time period prescribed. He
contends that if extension of time is granted in the present batch of matters it
would lead to an unending process and the anti-dumping investigation
would never conclude.
12. He lastly states that the reliance of the petitioner on the order passed
by the Supreme Court in Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation,
Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 is misplaced. He states that the
Supreme Court in Sagufa Ahmed & Ors. Vs. Upper Assam Plywood
Products Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 317 has succinctly outlined that
the order extending limitation was intended to benefit the vigilant litigant
who were prevented due to the pandemic and the lockdown from initiating
proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special
law.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
th
that the order dated 4
June, 2021 is an order in personam as the relief had
been extended by this Court to enable the petitioners therein (importers) to
place information before the Designated Authority and not the petitioners
herein (exporters).
14. However, this Court is of the view that since in an anti-dumping
investigation, the respondent has to pass a single consolidated order after
hearing the exporters as well as the importers and the time limit for filing of
objections by the importers had been extended by this Court vide order
W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 17 of 18

2022:DHC:1429-DB
th th
dated 4 June, 2021 beyond the next date of hearing i.e, 19 July, 2021, no
useful purpose would be served by foreclosing the right of the exporters, i.e.
st
the petitioners herein from filing their responses till 21
July, 2021.
th

15. Consequently, the responses filed by the petitioners between 25
st
June, 2021 and 31
July, 2021 are directed to be taken on record subject to
the payment of costs of Rs.1,00,000/- by each of the petitioners to Armed
Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund, Account No.90552010165915,
Canara Bank, Branch-South Block, Defence Headquarters, New Delhi-
110011 within four weeks.
16. It is clarified that the order has been passed in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case.


MANMOHAN, J


DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
APRIL 19, 2022
AS

W.P.(C) 1501/2022 & connected matters. Page 18 of 18