https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353492 An efficacious statutory appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act ordinarily bars recourse to writ jurisdiction against an anti-circumvention notification and Rule 25 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. The HC held that the recognized exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule were not made out because the challenge was, in substance, to the correctness of the decision and its application to the facts, not to any patent lack of jurisdiction at the threshold. The attack on the vires of Rule 25 was also treated as misconceived, since the grievance really concerned its interpretation and applicability. The dispute was therefore left to the statutory appellate forum. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353492 An efficacious statutory appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act ordinarily bars recourse to writ jurisdiction against an anti-circumvention notification and Rule 25 of the Anti-Dumping Rules. The HC held that the recognized exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule were not made out because the challenge was, in substance, to the correctness of the decision and its application to the facts, not to any patent lack of jurisdiction at the threshold. The attack on the vires of Rule 25 was also treated as misconceived, since the grievance really concerned its interpretation and applicability. The dispute was therefore left to the statutory appellate forum. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 20 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353492