Challenge to provisional anti-dumping duty proceedings under Rule 17 held premature; petition dismissed preserving statutory remedies

HC held the petition challenging provisional proceedings on imposition of anti-dumping duty under Rule 17 premature and disposed it accordingly. The court observed that whether the Central Government accepts or rejects the DGTR recommendation, the decision on final findings would be appealable by either the importer or the domestic industry; therefore present challenge to non-final findings cannot be entertained. The petition was dismissed as premature, with all parties' statutory rights and remedies preserved.

---

---

Petitioner challenged the Designated Authority's final findings (Case No. AD (OI)-18/2023 dated 28.12.2024) by which the DGTR recommended imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) under Rule 17 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on dumped articles and for determination of injury) Rules, 1995, concerning halo-butyl-rubber (HIIR) imported from specified subject countries. Petition filed under Article 226. In terms of Rule 18, the Central Government must decide within three months whether to accept DGTR's recommendation. Counsel for the petitioner raised alleged ambiguity as to availability of an appellate remedy against a Final Finding before the CESTAT, citing Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. and Jindal Poly Film Ltd. The court noted that under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, once the Government decides, an appeal would lie to CESTAT against imposition of ADD, or the domestic industry could challenge non-imposition. The court held that "the present petition is premature," observing that "Challenge being raised to Final Findings would clearly be pre-mature." Rights and remedies left open.

---