Hon'ble Kashi Nath Pandey,J.
We have heard Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rahul Agarwal for the petitioner. The office of the Assistant Solicitor General of India, High Court, Allahabad has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2. Shri B.K.S. Raghuvansi, Standing Counsel, Central Government appears for them. Shri M.C. Tripathi assisted by Shri Rajesh Sharma appears for La Opala RG Limited, Kolkata-respondent no.3.
The petitioner is a partnership firm having its registered office at Allahabad. The firm is the exclusive importer (for North India) of "RAK" brand of products made out of sodalime glass, sandstone, bonechina, crystal etc. imported from United Arab Emirates (UAE) under a licence/agreement between the petitioner, and the distributor of RAK brand of products, which is an entity by the name of ARC Distribution Tableware Private Ltd.
This writ petition is directed against the notification dated 9.8.2011 issued by Ministry of Finance, Government of India imposing Anti-Dumping Duty @ US$ 0.68 per kg. on the import of the 'Opal Glassware' from UAE. The notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India is in pursuance to the preliminary findings of Anti-Dumping Investigation concerning imports of 'Opal Glassware' originating in or exported from China PR and UAE dated 27th June, 2011 by Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Government of India.
The preliminary findings published under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 after an enquiry in accordance with the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, have been challenged by the petitioner on the following amongst other grounds:-
(a) Because the respondent No. 3 is an exporter of Opal Glassware to more than 25 countries. It has been enjoying an increasing market share and revenues from the sale of Opal Glassware in the Indian Market. Its profit margin has also been increasing. The respondent no. 3 is not domestic industry under Rule 2 (b). The application at its instance is not maintainable.
(b) Because Anti-Dumping Duty can only be imposed if the domestic industr