Premature writ challenge under safeguard duty regime declined where final findings were only recommendations, with liberty to contest notification later.

Under the safeguard duty scheme, the designated authority's final findings are only recommendations, while the Central Government makes the operative decision on levy, rate and period by notification. A writ challenge filed before issuance of that notification was therefore premature, because the legal consequence had not yet crystallised. Interference under Article 226 was declined at this stage, but the petitioner retained liberty to challenge the ultimate notification in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the designated authority's final findings and the notification process under the safeguard duty regime was maintainable at the stage of the authority's determination.

Analysis: The substantive scheme under Section 8B and Rules 11 and 12 contemplates that the designated authority's final findings operate as recommendations, while the Central Government is to take the ultimate decision on the levy, rate and period of safeguard duty through a notification. On that footing, the impugned challenge was premature because the final governmental decision had not yet been notified. The availability of a later challenge to the ultimate notification was preserved.

Conclusion: Interference under Article 226 was declined at this stage, and the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge the final notification in accordance with law.

---