Anti-dumping recommendatory findings cannot compel consideration of representations before notification, where statutory appellate remedy remains available afterward.

Recommendatory anti-dumping final findings do not create a statutory obligation to consider representations against them before a Central Government notification is issued. A writ direction cannot create a remedy unavailable under law or compel a decision on representations where no statutory duty exists. As the findings had not yet resulted in notification and a statutory appeal to CESTAT would be available after notification, the requested writ intervention was premature. The High Court therefore declined to direct consideration of the representations or exercise writ jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ court should direct consideration of representations against recommendatory anti-dumping final findings when no statutory duty to consider them exists and a statutory appeal would lie after notification.

Analysis: A direction to consider a representation cannot create a remedy not provided by law or compel an authority to decide a representation absent a statutory obligation. The anti-dumping final findings were recommendatory and had not resulted in a Central Government notification. Upon notification, the statutory appellate remedy before CESTAT would be available. The requested writ intervention was therefore premature.

Conclusion: No direction for consideration of the representations was warranted; the writ petition was premature and the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

---