ORDER : Heard Mr. AK Roy, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Dr. A Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. B Sarma, learned Standing counsel for the Customs Department. 2. WP(C) No.6768/2017 has been preferred by the writ petitioner assailing, amongst others, the Notifications dated 06.10.2017 and 28.01.2016 of the Central Government by which anti dumping duty had been imposed on the import of melamine. 3. By the Notification dated 28.01.2016, the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue in exercise of its powers under Section 9A of the Customs Tarriff Act, 1975 (in short Act of 1975) had imposed an anti dumping duty @ 331.10 USD per metric tone in respect of imports of melamine made from Peoples’ Republic of China, either as a country of origin or as a country of export. By the other Notification dated 06.10.2017 certain anti dumping duties were imposed on the import of melamine from certain countries other than from the Peoples’ Republic of China. 4. In respect of the Notification dated 06.10.2017, it is stated by Mr. B Sarma, learned counsel for the Customs Department that by a subsequent Notification of 19.03.2018, the imposition of anti dumping duty for import of melamine from countries other than the Peoples’ Republic of China has been withdrawn in the meantime. 5. The imposition of anti dumping duties is provided under Section 9A of the Act of 1975 where Section 9A(5) thereof provides that the anti-dumping duty imposed shall, unless revoked earlier, cease to have effect on the expiry of five years from the date of such imposition. It is further provided that if the Central Government, in a review, is of the opinion that the cessation of such duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, it may, from time to time, extend the period of such imposition for a further period of five years. It further provides that in the event, the review initiated before the expiry of the aforesaid initial period of five years could not be brought to its conclusion before such expiry, the anti-dumping duty may continue to remain in force pending the outcome of such a review for a further period not exceeding one year. 6. It further provides that in the event, the review initiated before the expiry of the aforesaid initial period of five years could not be brought to its conclusion before such expiry, the anti-dumping duty may continue to remain in force pending the outcome of such a review for a further period not exceeding one year. 6. The Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (for short, Rules of 1995) provides for the procedure by which the Central Government is required to arrive at its conclusion as to whether any dumping or injury is being caused to the domestic industry. For the purpose, Rule 3 of the Rules of 1995 provides for appointment of Designated Authority by a notification in the Official Gazette and Rule 4 provides for the duties of the Designated Authority, who, amongst others, is to investigate as to the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping in relation to import of any article and also to submit its findings, provisional or otherwise to Central Government as to the normal value, export price and the margin of dumping in relation to the article under investigation. 7. Rule 5 provides that the investigation by the Designated Authority shall be initiated only upon receipt of a written application by or on behalf of the domestic industry. Rule 6 further provides that such application of the domestic industry, amongst others, shall contain the basis on which dumping is alleged in the application. Rule 6 (7) also provides that the Designated Authority shall make available the evidence presented to it by one interested party to the other interested parties, participating in the investigation, which again is with a rider under Rule 7 which provides that if any information is provided to the Designated Authority on a confidential basis by any party in the course of investigation, the Designated Authority on being satisfied as to its confidentiality, treat such information to be confidential and such information be not disclosed to any other party. In other words, a prima facie, indication is that in the event any of the parties desire that any information provided be considered as confidential information, the same should be specifically stated in their application and the Designated Authority upon application of its mind on its confidentiality, pass their order thereupon. In other words, a prima facie, indication is that in the event any of the parties desire that any information provided be considered as confidential information, the same should be specifically stated in their application and the Designated Authority upon application of its mind on its confidentiality, pass their order thereupon. In the event, such exercise is not undertaken, a prima-facie view is that Rule 6(7) would prevail and the evidence presented to the Designated Authority by one interested party shall be provided to the other interested party. 8. In the instant case, the Notification dated 28.01.2016 imposing anti dumping duty @ 331.10 USD per metric ton for melamine imported from Peoples’ Republic of China has been assailed by the writ petitioner on the ground that neither any material was available before the Central Government nor was there any determination as to what should be the anti dumping duty and as such the imposition of anti dumping duty @331.10 USD is arbitrary and without any basis. A further contention is that the anti dumping duty cannot be imposed at a fixed rate of 331.10 USD per metric ton for a period of 5(five) years and, secondly, such duty can be imposed only in the Indian currency and not on the basis of USD. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this present application has been filed by the applicant M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Chemicals Ltd., who claims itself to be a domestic industry on the ground that the initiation of the investigation under Rule 5 of the 1955 Rules was undertaken as per their written application. According to Mr. AK Roy, learned counsel for the applicant any decision that this Court may arrive in respect of the Notification dated 28.01.2016 may adversely affect the interest of the applicant and, therefore, they are necessary party in the instant proceeding. To substantiate his claim, Mr. AK Roy, relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, reported in (1992) 2SCC 524, wherein in paragraph 14, it has been provided that “……..It is, therefore, necessary that the person must be directly or legally interested in the action in the answer, i.e., he can say that the litigation may lead to a result which will affect him legally that is by curtailing his legal rights.” Accordingly, it is the submission of Mr. AK Roy that the result of the present writ petition will effect the applicant legally by curtailing their legal right and, therefore, they are necessary party. 10. Dr. A Saraf, learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner on the other hand, also relies upon the same paragraph 14 of the decision in Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (supra)and relies upon the following lines therein “…The person to be joined must be one whose presence is necessary as a party. What makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness”. “…… The only reason which makes it necessary to make a person a party to an action is that he should be bound by the result of the action and the question to be settled, therefore, must be a question in the action which can not be effectually and completely settled unless she is a party”. “……It is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action. ……. The line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct interest or the legal interest and commercial interest.” 11. In order to examine as to whether any legal right has accrued to the applicant from the Notification dated 28.01.2018, it is noticed that by the said Notification the anti dumping duty @ 331.10 USD per metric ton has been imposed for imports of melamine from the Peoples’ Republic of China. As indicated, Section 9A of the Act of 1975 provides for imposition of anti dumping duty by the Central Government in the event it arrives at a conclusion that an exporter or producer from any country or territory is exporting any goods into India at a price less than its normal value. Further Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995 provides the procedure that the initiation of the investigation by the Designated Authority be done only upon the receipt of the written application on behalf of the domestic industry. 12. Further Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995 provides the procedure that the initiation of the investigation by the Designated Authority be done only upon the receipt of the written application on behalf of the domestic industry. 12. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995 enjoins the domestic industry a legal right to make an application to initiate an investigation by the Designated Authority and in doing so also to assist the Designated Authority with all relevant materials to arrive at a just and proper determination as regards the desirability imposing an anti dumping duty and if yes, as to what should be the amount of anti dumping duty to be imposed. But the scheme of the Rules of 1995 is that it is the Designated Authority who shall make the recommendation to the Central Government and the Central Government by relying upon such recommendation would impose the anti dumping duty at the rate it thinks to be appropriate. The domestic industry upon whose application the investigation is initiated under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995 have no claim of its own as to what should be the appropriate rate at which the anti dumping duty is to be imposed. 13. From the said point of view, it cannot be said that any legal right flows in favour of the domestic industry that the anti dumping duty shall invariably be at the rate of 331.10 USD per metric ton, as provided in the notification dated 28.01.2016, irrespective of the fact as to whether such rate was arrived at by following the due procedure of law or there were some aberration of the procedure of law in arriving at the rate of the anti dumping duty. In the view of the Court, in the event the domestic industries attains some benefit if the anti dumping duty is fixed at the rate of Rs.331.10 per metric ton, such benefit would be in the nature of a commercial interest, rather than a legal interest. 14. In the view of the Court, in the event the domestic industries attains some benefit if the anti dumping duty is fixed at the rate of Rs.331.10 per metric ton, such benefit would be in the nature of a commercial interest, rather than a legal interest. 14. Accordingly, the provision in paragraph-14 of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (supra) to the effect that the line has been drawn on a wider construction of the rule between the direct or legal interest and commercial interest for the purpose of determining as to whether a party would be a necessary party in a litigation or not, would be applicable in case of the applicants for the purpose of this application. It can also be construed that the applicant by seeking to be impleaded as a respondent also seeks to prosecute its own cause of action that the imposition of the anti dumping duty at the rate of Rs.331.10 USD per metric ton be retained and from the said point of view also the provision in paragraph-14 of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (supra)to the effect that it is difficult to say that the rule contemplates joining as a defendant a person whose only object is to prosecute his own cause of action, would also be applicable. 15. Mr. AK. Roy, learned counsel for the applicant raises a contention that if impleaded as a respondent, the applicant has materials in their hand, which if brought on record, would be relevant for a proper adjudication of the writ petition. Such contention is also unacceptable in view of the provision in paragraph-14 of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (supra) that ‘what makes a person a necessary party is not merely that he has relevant evidence to give on some of the questions involved; that would only make him a necessary witness.’ 16. Further from the touchstone of the established law as regards the determination of a necessary party, as to whether a question cannot be eventually and completely settled unless he is a party or as to whether the order to be passed cannot be given effect in the absence of such party, also, it cannot be accepted that the issue raised in the writ petition at hand, cannot be effectually decided or the order to be passed to have its effect, without the applicant being a respondent. 17. 17. Further the law in respect of a necessary party has also been settled by the Supreme Court in its pronouncement in Deputy Commr., Hardoi, in charge Court of Wards, Bharawan Estate –vs-Rama Krishna Narain and others reported in AIR 1953 S.C. 521 (Vol. 40. C.N. 131) wherein, in paragraph 14 it has been held as under:- "14.….The dispute relates to title to property and according to all principles of impleading of parties it is not the eventual benefit that a person may derive from a certain decision that is the crucial test in deciding whether a part is a necessary party or merely a proper party.” “… the eventual interest of a party in the fruits of a litigation cannot be held to be the true test of impleading parties under the Code of Civil Procedure and it is rather difficult to hold that where that is not the true test under the Code, that should be adopted as a test….” 18. In the instant case, the interest of the applicant is that in the event the writ petition is dismissed, the applicants would continue to enjoy the benefit of the anti dumping duty being imposed at the rate of 331.10 USD per metric ton in respect of import of melamine from Peoples’ Republic of China. As such, the eventual interest of the applicant is in the fruit of the present litigation, as to whether they would continue to get the eventual benefit that may be derived from the decision in the writ petition. From the said point of view also, by applying the proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Deputy Commr., Hardoi (supra) in paragraph-14, where the eventual interest of the applicant is the outcome of the writ petition, so as to whether they will continue to have the eventual benefit of the rate of anti dumping duty be at Rs.331.10 USD per metric ton, the applicant is found not to be a necessary party in the present proceeding. 19. 19. But, however, as already noted as the initiation of the investigation under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1995 was initiated as per the written application of the applicant, the applicant may have some interest in the present writ proceeding and also the applicant would be in a good position to provide the Court, the appropriate material which may ultimately help in the appropriate adjudication of the matter. 20. Accordingly, this court is of the view that it would be appropriate to allow the petitioner to be an intervenor in the connected writ proceeding. In this respect, the law has been made clear by the Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Haryana Rohtak reported in (1999) 3 SCC 141 , wherein in paragraph 12, it has been held that the only purpose of granting an intervention application is to entitle the intervenor to address arguments in support of one or the other side. Accordingly, the applicant on being allowed to be made an intervenor in the writ proceeding is allowed to make their submission and provide any material that they may desire to produce in support of either of the parties in the present litigation. 21. In terms of the above, this interlocutory application stands disposed of.