https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47871 Where the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides an appeal to CESTAT against a final anti-dumping determination or review, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily yield to that statutory remedy because the appellate forum is wider and more efficacious. The Court treated the impugned final finding as appealable and found the writ route inappropriate for final adjudication, though limited interim protection could still be granted pending appeal. It also reaffirmed that a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not declare law under Article 141 and therefore cannot operate as binding precedent on the maintainability of the appeal or the remedy structure in the present controversy. en-us Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:00:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47871 Where the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 provides an appeal to CESTAT against a final anti-dumping determination or review, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily yield to that statutory remedy because the appellate forum is wider and more efficacious. The Court treated the impugned final finding as appealable and found the writ route inappropriate for final adjudication, though limited interim protection could still be granted pending appeal. It also reaffirmed that a non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not declare law under Article 141 and therefore cannot operate as binding precedent on the maintainability of the appeal or the remedy structure in the present controversy. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 18 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47871