2017 (7) TMI 976 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - whether hot rolled or cold rolled of all grades/series; whether or not in plates, sheets, or in coil form or in any shape, of any width, of thickness 1.2 mm to 10.5 mm in case of hot rolled coils, 3 mm to 10.5 mm in case of hot rolled plates & sheets; and upto 6.75 mm in case of cold rolled flat products? - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Now Know As Hindustan Unilever Limited Versus Union of India & Others 2017 (5) TMI 818 - DELHI HIGH COURT , where it was 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. This Court is not persuaded to take a different view in the present petition for both the reasons noted hereinbefore viz., 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 - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Notification recommending levy of Anti-Subsidy Duty on import of stainless steel products from China - Prematurity of the petition - Compliance with court directions by Designated Authority - Violation of principles of natural justice - Availability of statutory remedy before CESTAT.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the challenge in the writ petition against a Notification recommending the levy of an Anti-Subsidy Duty on the import of stainless steel products from China. The court raised concerns about the prematurity of the petition as the Final Finding had not been accepted by the Central Government, and a notification implementing it was pending. The petitioner was reminded of the statutory remedy available to appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) once the notification is issued.

The petitioner contended non-compliance by the Designated Authority (DA) with specific directions issued by the court in a previous order. The court noted that while the DA failed to pass a speaking order on all contentions raised by the petitioner, the same contention could be raised before the CESTAT when challenging the Final Finding and the notification. The petitioner argued that the petition involved a violation of principles of natural justice, which could also be raised before the CESTAT.

Referring to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in a similar case, the petitioner sought the court's interference, citing violation of natural justice. However, the court highlighted its previous decisions where it declined to entertain petitions challenging the Final Finding of the DA without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal before the CESTAT. The court emphasized that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised routinely when an alternative statutory remedy is available.

In line with its previous rulings, the High Court declined to entertain the present petition due to prematurity and the availability of the statutory remedy before the CESTAT. The court clarified that the petitioner could raise all grounds in the petition before the CESTAT and seek expeditious disposal of the appeal. Consequently, the writ petition and the application were dismissed, allowing the petitioner to pursue remedies before the CESTAT.