TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2017 issued by the Director General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties (Respondent No. 4) recommending levy of anti-dumping duty on imports of LAB from Qatar, Iran and China in exercise of the powers under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ('CTA') read with the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 ('Rules). 2. One of the main planks of challenge to the Final Findings is that the Designated Authority ("DA‟) (Respondent No.4) acted in gross violation of principles of natural justice as "despite the fact that Respondent No. 4 granted hearing on 2nd March, 2017 to various interested parties in the matter, the same was in comple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iderable emphasis was placed by Mr. Jain: "38.2. Insofar as the maintainability of the petition in view of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the notification issued by the Central Government is concerned, the scope of inquiry before the appellate authority would be the notification issued by the Central Government and the final findings on which the same is based. The appellate authority while considering the validity of the notification under Section 18 of the Act, would not go into the validity or otherwise of the disclosure statement issued under rule 16 of the rules. Therefore, insofar as the challenge to the disclosure statement is concerned, as observed by this Court in the interim order dated 13.12.2016, the petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ossible for the party aggrieved to challenge the disclosure statement before the CESTAT is unable to be discerned from the above passage. If the Final Finding can be appealed against before the CESTAT, there is no reason why the CESTAT cannot examine the correctness of the assertions made in the disclosure statement which constitutes the very foundation of the entire exercise leading up to the Final Finding by the DA. 7. The relevant portion of Section 9 C of the CTA reads thus: "9C. (1) An appeal against the order of determination or review thereof regarding the existence, degree and effect of any subsidy or dumping in relation to import of any article shall lie to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal constituted under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would be comparable to a plaint. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded that the grounds urged in the writ petition cannot be urged before the CESTAT. It is not without significance that the Gujarat High Court makes no reference in the above passage in Nirma Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) to Section 9 C of the CTA. 9. The Court is also not persuaded to take a view different from the one it has in Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd. v Designated Authority (supra); PTA Users Association v. Union of India (supra) and Balaji Action Buildwell v. Union of India (supra). 10. The question is not whether this Court can entertain the present writ petition. The question is whether, in the facts and circumstances, it should? The power under Article 226 of th....