Anti-dumping writ review is limited where statutory appeal exists and no exceptional ground for interference is shown.

Writ interference against final anti-dumping findings and the consequential notification is confined to exceptional cases despite the statutory appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. The article notes that Article 226 review may be invoked only for gross violation of natural justice, breach of mandatory statutory procedure, or absence of jurisdiction; where interested parties were heard, non-confidential material was disclosed, and submissions were considered, those exceptions are not made out. Questions on methodology, valuation, landed value, non-injurious price, injury margin, and lesser duty assessment are matters for the Tribunal. A pending challenge before the Tribunal by another interested party also weighs against writ intervention.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the final anti-dumping findings and the consequential notification was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and whether the case attracted the exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy on account of alleged violation of natural justice, statutory procedure, or lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 9C provides an appellate remedy before the Tribunal against orders concerning dumping, injury and the resulting determination. The Court noted that the availability of that remedy does not by itself curtail writ jurisdiction, but interference under Article 226 is reserved for exceptional situations such as gross violation of natural justice, breach of mandatory statutory provisions, or absence of jurisdiction. On the facts, the disclosure statement and the final findings showed that interested parties were given opportunity of hearing, non-confidential material was shared as required, and the authority dealt with the relevant submissions while determining normal value, export price, dumping margin and injury margin. The Court held that disputes about the methodology, valuation, computation of landed value, non-injurious price, injury margin and the lesser duty assessment fall within the Tribunal's domain and cannot be reappraised in writ proceedings. The pendency of a challenge before the Tribunal by another interested party was also treated as a further reason not to exercise writ interference.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy before the Tribunal; no exceptional ground for writ interference was made out.

---