https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358869 Preliminary safeguard findings under Section 8B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the 1997 Rules are only recommendatory, so writ interference at that stage is limited to clear jurisdictional error, statutory infraction, or breach of natural justice. The Madras HC held that the writ petition was maintainable on the facts, including territorial jurisdiction, but declined to quash the preliminary findings because no provisional safeguard duty had yet been imposed and the investigation was still ongoing. The Court further held that the absence of a hearing before the preliminary recommendation did not vitiate the proceedings, since the scheme contemplated further participation and a final hearing before final findings, and no prejudice was shown. en-us Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Sep 2018 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358869 Preliminary safeguard findings under Section 8B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the 1997 Rules are only recommendatory, so writ interference at that stage is limited to clear jurisdictional error, statutory infraction, or breach of natural justice. The Madras HC held that the writ petition was maintainable on the facts, including territorial jurisdiction, but declined to quash the preliminary findings because no provisional safeguard duty had yet been imposed and the investigation was still ongoing. The Court further held that the absence of a hearing before the preliminary recommendation did not vitiate the proceedings, since the scheme contemplated further participation and a final hearing before final findings, and no prejudice was shown. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 16 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358869