Premature writ challenge to anti-dumping final findings rejected in favour of the statutory appellate remedy

Writ petitions challenging anti-dumping final findings were held premature because the findings were only recommendations and had not yet become operative through a Central Government notification. The court noted that the statutory scheme provided an appellate remedy after the recommendation matured into an enforceable order, and that the disputes raised factual questions on like article, non-injurious price, dumping margin, confidentiality, and landed value that were intertwined with the merits of the investigation. In these circumstances, the existence of the specialised remedy weighed against immediate writ intervention, and the petitions were not entertained on merits at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the Designated Authority's final findings on anti-dumping duty were liable to be entertained under Article 226 at that stage, or whether the petitioners should be relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The final findings were only recommendations under the anti-dumping framework and had not yet been acted upon by the Central Government. The statutory scheme provided an appeal after the recommendation matured into an operative order through the consequential notification. The challenge raised questions involving competing factual claims on like article, non-injurious price, dumping margin, confidentiality, and landed value, which were intertwined with the merits of the investigation. In such a setting, the existence of the specialized appellate remedy weighed against immediate writ intervention, and the petitions were found to be premature.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits at this stage and were disposed of with liberty to the competent authority to consider the recommendations and the parties' representations in accordance with law.

---