Refund of anti-dumping duty paid by the petitioner - The High...

Refund of anti-dumping duty paid by the petitioner - The High court found the petition misconceived, highlighting the petitioner's failure to fulfill basic requirements for invoking Article 226, including the absence of a 'demand for justice' prior to filing the petition. The court also applied principles of delay and laches, noting the petitioner's belated approach is barred by significant delay without a satisfactory explanation. Additionally, the court rejected the notion that a Supreme Court decision could retrospectively provide a cause of action for challenging the notifications or claiming a refund.