2018 (2) TMI 338 - HC - Customs

Imposition of ADD - Flexible Slabstock Polyol - import from Australia, the European Union and Singapore - statutory remedy - maintainability of petition - Held that - the Court is not satisfied that the ground urged by the Petitioner before this Court regarding violation of principle of natural justice cannot be urged by it before the CESTAT. It is certainly within the scope of the proceedings before the CESTAT challenging the Final Findings as well as the consequential notification - the Court declines to entertain these writ petitions while reserving the liberty of the Petitioners to approach the CESTAT with fresh petitions in terms of the liberty already granted by the CESTAT - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Final Findings of Designated Authority in anti-dumping investigation regarding 'Flexible Slabstock Polyol' from specific countries and imposition of Anti-dumping Duty (ADD) under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis:
The judgment involves multiple issues concerning the challenge to the Final Findings of the Designated Authority (DA) in an anti-dumping investigation related to 'Flexible Slabstock Polyol' import. The writ petitions challenge both the Final Findings of the DA and the consequential Notification levying Anti-dumping Duty (ADD) on the product. The petitions have been pending for over two years, with interim orders restricting actions by the Respondents. The Petitioner initially approached the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) during the pendency of the petitions, but the appeals were disposed of with liberty to re-approach after the final verdict in the petitions.

The Court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the Court, citing previous judgments requiring Petitioners to first approach the CESTAT in matters challenging Final Findings of the DA and imposition of ADD under the Customs Tariff Act. The Petitioner argued a violation of natural justice in the DA's reversal of conclusions without providing an opportunity for input. However, the Court noted that such grounds can be raised before the CESTAT during challenges to Final Findings and consequential notifications.

Ultimately, the Court declined to entertain the writ petitions, directing the Petitioners to approach the CESTAT with fresh petitions as per the liberty granted earlier. The judgment highlights the significance of following proper legal procedures and exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention, ensuring a structured approach to addressing legal grievances in matters of anti-dumping investigations and imposition of duties under the Customs Tariff Act.