Court clarifies appeal cannot be made against preliminary findings, directs Central Govt to consider representations before imposing duty.

The Court found the challenge to the preliminary findings premature and clarified that an appeal does not lie against such findings. The Court directed the Central Government to consider the petitioner's representation before imposing provisional duty and allowed interveners to make representations as well. The petition was disposed of with these directions, permitting direct service and ordering applicants to be arrayed as respondents in the Special Civil Application, emphasizing the importance of Central Government's consideration before imposing provisional duty.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to preliminary findings of Designated Authority u/s Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Customs Tariff Rules, 1995; Appeal against preliminary finding; Representation to Central Government before imposition of provisional duty.

Judgment Details:

1. The petition challenged the preliminary findings of the Designated Authority under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Customs Tariff Rules, 1995. The Court noted the procedure under Rule 12 where the Designated Authority records a recommendatory preliminary finding to the Central Government for imposing provisional duty, followed by final finding and duty payment. The Court found the petition premature based on the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case.

2. The Court clarified that an appeal does not lie against a preliminary finding, as it is recommendatory in nature and meant for Central Government's consideration under Rule 13. The Central Government is required to issue a notification for imposing anti-dumping duty based on the preliminary finding. The Court directed the Central Government to consider the petitioner's representation before issuing the notification of provisional duty, allowing interveners to make representations as well.

3. The Court disposed of the petition with the above observations and directions, permitting direct service. The Civil Applications were allowed, ordering the applicants to be arrayed as respondents in the Special Civil Application. The case was disposed of accordingly, with the Court emphasizing the need for Central Government's consideration before imposing provisional duty.

---