Alternative statutory remedy bars writ review of anti-circumvention disputes unless a clear jurisdictional defect exists.

An efficacious statutory appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act ordinarily bars recourse to writ jurisdiction against an anti-circumvention notification and Rule 25 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. The HC held that the recognized exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule were not made out because the challenge was, in substance, to the correctness of the decision and its application to the facts, not to any patent lack of jurisdiction at the threshold. The attack on the vires of Rule 25 was also treated as misconceived, since the grievance really concerned its interpretation and applicability. The dispute was therefore left to the statutory appellate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the anti-circumvention notification and Rule 25 of the Anti-Dumping Rules should be entertained despite the statutory appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The availability of a specific appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal weighed heavily against invoking writ jurisdiction. The exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy were held not to be attracted because the challenge was, in substance, to the correctness of the decision and its application to the facts, rather than to a patent lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at the threshold. The challenge to the vires of Rule 25 was found to be misconceived, as the petitioner itself relied upon the Rule and the grievance essentially concerned its interpretation and applicability. The Court reiterated that disputes of this nature, including questions relating to the initiation and merits of anti-circumvention proceedings, are better addressed in the statutory appellate forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised unless the case falls within a recognized exception such as a clear absence of jurisdiction at inception.

---