(1.) Heard Dr. Ashok Saraf, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned senior counsel and Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondents No.1 and 2 being the Finance Department, Government of India as well as the respondent No.3 being the Director General of Anti Dumping Duties (DGAD) and Mr. Pragyan Sharma learned counsel for the intervener, Gujrat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Limited. Also heard MR. SC Keyal, learned counsel.
(2.) The review petition is instituted in respect of the discussions and conclusions arrived at in the judgment and order dtd. 26/8/2019 in WP(C)No.6568/2017 in paragraphs 149 to 163 of the judgment as regards the concept 'domestic industry' as defined in Rule 2(b) of the Anti Dumping Rules 1995 (in short ADR 1995), and the discussions and conclusions in paragraphs 164 and 165 of the judgment as regards as to whether the evaluation of the non-injurious price in terms of the United States Dollar (for short, the USD) at the exchange rate as it prevailed in the year 2012 would be acceptable in law or it should be determined in terms of Indian Rupees (INR).
(3.) Dr. Ashok Saraf learned senior counsel for the review petitioner at the outset urges upon that although the review had been instituted on several grounds as stated in the review petition, but only two grounds are being insisted upon for the purpose of hearing of this petition. The first ground urged upon is that even after the successive amendments to the definition of 'domestic industry' under Rule 2(b) of the ADR 1995 it is clear enough to understand that an importer of the like article is expressly excluded from the purview of being included in the definition of 'domestic industry'. The second ground urged upon is that the non-injurious price would have to be determined in terms of INR and not USD and therefore, the said issue also requires a determination rather than keeping it open for the authorities to decide.