J G IMPEX P LTD Vs. DESIGNATED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to extend time limit for furnishing the comments to the communication of the respondent dated 28.10.2002 by another 30 days from 5.11.2002.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication which was sent by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, in terms of Rule 16 of the Indian Anti-Dumping Rules, hereinafter called "the Rules". In the last paragraph of that order, the respondent has stated that interested parties may comment on the issue dealt with thereunder at the latest by 15.00 hours on Tuesday 5.11.2002. It is also further stated that the investigations are time bound, and request for extension of time shall not be entertained. As the said communication dated 28.10.2002 was received by the petitioner only on 1.11.2002 and there was hardly any time for him to respond to the information called for by the respondent, by letter dated 5.11.2002 he has intimated stating that the intimation was received only on 1.11.2002 and 2.11.2002 and 3.11.2002 being Saturday and Sunday and 4.11.2002 was a holiday on account of Deepawali, it was not possible for him to send a reply before 15.00 hours on 5.11.2002.

(3.) Notice was ordered to the respondent and I have also heard the learned Additional Solicitor General of India. He points out that Anti-Dumping Rules relate to larger natonal issues of framing policies of the Government in respect of import and export and fixing of the Customs Tariff and the entire exercise is to be completed by a time bound Schedule as provided under Rule 17. Under Rule 17 the Designated Authority shall within one year from the date of initiation of an investigation, determine as to whether article under investigation was being dumped in India and thereafter submit a report to the Central Government. Proviso also empowers the Central Government to extend it by six months. Therefore, the entire exercise was time bound and the nature of the very enquiry was a public enquiry. Learned Additional Solicitor General also draws my attention to the various provisions under the Rules. Rule 5 deals with initiation of investigation. Pursuant to the initiation of investigation and the enquiry, the Designated authority shall record preliminary findings under Rule 12. which has already been complied with. Therefore, what remained to be complied with was only rendering a finding in terms of Rule 17 which was time bound. It is only in those circumstances, a limited period was prescribed for the enquiry and the nature of the enquiry being only public and time bound, the petitioner has no legal right to ask for extension of time.