2021 (2) TMI 383 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - petition is rejected on the ground that since none of the material submitted by the Petitioners has been considered, the final findings are liable to be set aside and the Respondent ought to be directed to consider the said material - HELD THAT - This Court has been consistent in its view on challenges raised at the stage of final finding which is clear from perusal of judgment in M/S SUNCITY SHEETS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY OTHERS 2017 (7) TMI 976 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that the petition is premature since no notification has yet been issued by the Central Government consequent upon the Final Finding dated 4th July, 2017 and secondly, even if such a notification is issued, the Petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of an appeal before the CESTAT. While the Petitioner may have a grievance that on a mere technical objection or a technical non-compliance, substantive material of the Petitioner has been ignored, the Petitioner would have to wait for the final notification, if any, issued by the Government in order to challenge the same in accordance with law. The final findings issued by the designated authority under Rule 17 of Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995 are submitted to the Central Government which may impose anti-dumping duty under Rule 18 of the said rules. Unless and until the notification under Rule 18 is issued, the duty does not take effect - the writ petition is dismissed as being pre-mature, however leaving open the Petitioners right to avail its remedies.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to final findings of Designated Authority in anti-dumping investigation.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the final findings issued by the Designated Authority (DA) regarding an anti-dumping investigation on New Pneumatic Radial Tyres of Rubber for Buses and Lorries. They claimed that their submissions were not considered, leading to the rejection of their responses on technical grounds.

2. The primary contention of the petitioners was that the final findings should be set aside as their materials were not taken into account. They sought a direction for the DA to consider the submitted material.

3. The respondents argued that the writ petition was premature, citing previous judgments such as Designated Authority & Ors. v. Sandisk International Limited & Ors. and Saurashtra Chemicals Limited v. Union of India. They maintained that the petition should not be entertained at the final finding stage.

4. The court, in line with its previous decisions, emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before challenging final findings of the DA. Referring to judgments like Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Union of India, the court highlighted the need to follow the statutory appeal process before the CESTAT.

5. Despite the petitioners' grievance over technical non-compliance leading to the disregard of substantive material, the court dismissed the writ petition as premature. The court clarified that the petitioners could challenge any final notification issued by the government under Rule 18 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995, while reserving their right to raise the grounds mentioned in the present petition.

6. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition as premature but allowed the petitioners to avail their remedies if they chose to challenge any final notification under Rule 18. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.