Writ challenge to provisional anti-dumping duty fails where statutory remedy exists and no perversity is shown.

Writ interference with provisional anti-dumping duty is limited where an alternative statutory remedy is available and the impugned notification is not shown to be perverse or arbitrary. The High Court noted that provisional duty is temporary pending determination of normal value and dumping margin, and that the designated authority had relied on material collected under the prescribed procedure. It also recorded that the exporters' responses were deficient and that the record indicated dumping and injury to the domestic industry. On that basis, the writ challenge to the preliminary findings and provisional duty was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the preliminary findings and the notification imposing provisional anti-dumping duty was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative statutory remedy, and whether any patent error or perversity justified interference at the interim stage.

Analysis: The petition assailed the initiation and continuation of anti-dumping proceedings and the consequential provisional duty. The Court noted that an appeal lay against the levy of provisional duty, and that such duty operated only for a limited period pending determination of normal value and margin of dumping. It further noticed that the designated authority had proceeded on evidence collected in accordance with the prescribed procedure, that the exporters' responses were found deficient, and that the material indicated dumping and injury to the domestic industry. In these circumstances, the impugned notification could not be said to be perverse or arbitrary so as to warrant writ interference despite the alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional anti-dumping duty was not entertained in writ jurisdiction, and the petition failed.

---