Statutory appeal over writ remedy in anti-dumping matters; non-speaking SLP dismissal is not binding precedent.

Where the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides an appeal to CESTAT against a final anti-dumping determination or review, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily yield to that statutory remedy because the appellate forum is wider and more efficacious. The Court treated the impugned final finding as appealable and found the writ route inappropriate for final adjudication, though limited interim protection could still be granted pending appeal. It also reaffirmed that a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not declare law under Article 141 and therefore cannot operate as binding precedent on the maintainability of the appeal or the remedy structure in the present controversy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition was maintainable when the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provided an appeal to CESTAT against the final finding/review in anti-dumping matters; (ii) whether a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP in a different matter constituted binding precedent on the maintainability of such an appeal.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition was maintainable when the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provided an appeal to CESTAT against the final finding/review in anti-dumping matters.

Analysis: The statutory scheme contemplated appeal to CESTAT against the order of determination or review regarding dumping and subsidy issues. The Court held that the appeal remedy was wider and more efficacious than writ jurisdiction in the facts of the case. The existence of a statutory appellate forum, coupled with the nature of the impugned final finding and the limited interim protection sought, made the writ route inappropriate for final adjudication.

Conclusion: The impugned order was held to be appealable before CESTAT, and the writ petition was not the proper substantive remedy.

Issue (ii): Whether a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP in a different matter constituted binding precedent on the maintainability of such an appeal.

Analysis: A dismissal without reasons does not declare law under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Court applied the settled principle that a non-speaking order, or an order rendered sub silentio, does not amount to a binding precedent and cannot control the present controversy. The earlier Tribunal view resting on such dismissal was therefore not accepted as determinative.

Conclusion: The non-speaking dismissal of the earlier SLP was held not to be binding precedent on the issue.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appellate remedy before CESTAT, while granting limited interim protection pending consideration of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy against a final determination in anti-dumping proceedings, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily yield to that remedy, and a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not constitute binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

---