Constructive res judicata and ultra vires review shaped the challenge to anti-dumping rules, which failed on both grounds.

Constructive res judicata barred a renewed writ challenge to paragraph 7 of Annexure-1 of the anti-dumping rules because the petitioner had participated in earlier proceedings and could have raised the validity objection then. The Court also held that paragraph 7 of Annexure-1 read with Rule 10 was not ultra vires Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975: subordinate legislation is presumed valid and will be struck down only if plainly inconsistent with the parent statute or constitutionally defective. On both maintainability and merits, the writ petition failed and the anti-dumping regime remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the challenge to paragraph 7 of Annexure-1 of the anti-dumping rules was barred by constructive res judicata and the petitioner could not reopen the same controversy in a fresh writ petition; (ii) whether paragraph 7 of Annexure-1 read with Rule 10 of the anti-dumping rules was ultra vires Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Issue (i): Whether the challenge to paragraph 7 of Annexure-1 of the anti-dumping rules was barred by constructive res judicata and the petitioner could not reopen the same controversy in a fresh writ petition.

Analysis: The petitioner had participated in the anti-dumping proceedings and had earlier carried the matter through the appellate process without challenging the validity of the impugned rule. The Court held that a party cannot be permitted to reopen the same cause of action by raising a new ground which could and ought to have been urged earlier. The principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata apply to prevent repetitive litigation on the same dispute.

Conclusion: The challenge was barred and could not be entertained in the writ proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether paragraph 7 of Annexure-1 read with Rule 10 of the anti-dumping rules was ultra vires Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The Court relied on the earlier Supreme Court decision upholding the determination process used by the designated authority and the dismissal of the petitioner's challenge to the anti-dumping levy. It noted the settled presumption in favour of the validity of subordinate legislation and the principle that a rule must be tested against the object, scheme and enabling provision of the parent statute. On that basis, the Court found no inconsistency between the impugned rules and Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and no ground such as lack of competence, violation of constitutional rights, repugnancy, or manifest arbitrariness was made out.

Conclusion: The rule was not ultra vires Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on both maintainability and merits, and the anti-dumping regime and levy were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge to subordinate legislation cannot be reopened in later proceedings when it could have been raised earlier, and a rule will not be struck down as ultra vires unless it is shown to be plainly inconsistent with the parent statute or otherwise constitutionally invalid.

---