Natural justice challenge to anti-dumping findings was left to statutory appeal despite successor authority concerns.

Anti-dumping final findings were challenged on the ground that the hearing was conducted by one authority but the findings were issued by a successor authority, raising a natural justice objection under Rule 6(6) of the Anti-dumping Rules, 1995. The court noted that the grievance had substance but declined to entertain the writ petition because an effective statutory appeal was available under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The challenge was therefore left to the appellate authority, and the writ remedy was not invoked in preference to the alternate statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the statutory appeal remedy, and whether the challenge to the final findings could succeed on the ground of violation of natural justice because the final findings were issued by a successor authority who had not conducted the hearing.

Analysis: The final findings and consequential notification were challenged on the basis that the petitioner had been heard by one designated authority, while the final findings were recorded by another. Reliance was placed on the requirement of compliance with the principles of natural justice in anti-dumping proceedings and on the statutory scheme providing for hearing under Rule 6(6) of the Anti-dumping Rules, 1995. The Court accepted that the contention had substance, but noted that the very same argument had already been raised before the Supreme Court in connected proceedings, where the petitioners were permitted to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. In that situation, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition and directed the petitioner to invoke the alternate remedy under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the anti-dumping final findings was left to be examined by the appellate authority, and the writ jurisdiction was declined in favour of the alternate statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available against anti-dumping final findings, the writ court may decline to exercise jurisdiction and require the party to pursue that remedy, even when a plea of violation of natural justice is raised.

---