2017 (5) TMI 818 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - validity and correctness of final finding - violation of Principles of natural justice - despite the fact that Respondent No. 4 granted hearing on 2nd March 2017 to various interested parties in the matter the same was in complete exclusion to the Petitioner herein - Held that - The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is an extraordinary one and should not be exercised in a routine manner especially when the Petitioner has an efficacious and adequate alternative statutory remedy available. Otherwise the Court would be supplanting the functioning of the statutory appellate authority tasked specifically with reviewing the correctness of the orders of the subordinate statutory authorities This Court does have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Court finds that no case has been made out to persuade it to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the correctness of the Final Finding of the DA. Petition dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Final Finding dated 6th March 2017 recommending anti-dumping duty on LAB imports from Qatar, Iran, and China. Violation of principles of natural justice by the Designated Authority. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 without exhausting statutory remedy of appeal before CESTAT.

Analysis:

1. The Petitioner sought to challenge the Final Finding recommending anti-dumping duty on LAB imports from specific countries under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The primary challenge was the alleged violation of principles of natural justice by the Designated Authority (DA) by excluding the Petitioner from a hearing granted to other parties. The Petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 9 C of the CTA.

2. The Court considered previous judgments where similar challenges were not entertained directly without exhausting the appeal remedy before CESTAT. The Petitioner argued that a Gujarat High Court judgment allowed a challenge to the disclosure statement through a writ petition. However, the Court disagreed with this view, emphasizing that CESTAT could examine the validity of the disclosure statement, as it forms the foundation of the Final Finding.

3. The Court analyzed Section 9 C of the CTA, which provides for appeals to CESTAT regarding determinations of subsidy or dumping. It concluded that CESTAT could review the disclosure statement's validity, similar to a court reviewing a plaint in a civil case. The Court maintained its stance from previous judgments that the writ petition should not be entertained when an alternative statutory remedy is available, like an appeal before CESTAT.

4. The Court highlighted the extraordinary nature of Article 226 jurisdiction and the importance of not supplanting the statutory appellate authority's role. It dismissed the writ petition, stating that all grounds raised could be presented before CESTAT. The Petitioner was encouraged to pursue the appeal before CESTAT and request an expedited hearing, ensuring the statutory remedy is availed in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention, maintaining consistency with previous decisions and upholding the role of the appellate authority in reviewing administrative decisions.