2017 (7) TMI 976

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty (DA) in the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, publishing the Final Finding recommending the levy of an Anti-Subsidy/Countervailing Duty of 18.95% on import of "Flat rolled products of stainless steel, whether hot rolled or cold rolled of all grades/series; whether or not in plates, sheets, or in coil form or in any shape, of any width, of thickness 1.2 mm to 10.5 mm in case of hot rolled coils, 3 mm to 10.5 mm in case of hot rolled plates & sheets; and upto 6.75 mm in case of cold rolled flat products" (excluding razor blade grade steel) from the People's Republic of China. 2. At the outset, a query was posed to Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, as to why this Court should exercise its di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t notification before the CESTAT. Mr. Sibal then submitted that this Court should interfere since the petition involves violation of principles of natural justice. However, he could not dispute that even this ground can be urged before the CESTAT. 5. Mr. Sibal referred to decision dated 23rd February, 2017 of the Gujarat High Court in C/SCA/16426/201 (Nirma Limited v. Union of India) where in similar circumstances, that High Court had rejected the challenge to the maintainability of the writ petition challenging an ADD notification notwithstanding the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal before the CESTAT. 6. This Court has in its order dated 16th May, 2017 in W.P.(C) 2632/2017 (Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Union of India) declined....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ties. Therefore, while acknowledging that this Court does have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, in the facts and circumstances of the present case the Court finds that no case has been made out to persuade it to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the correctness of the Final Finding of the DA. The Court is of the firm view that every ground urged in the present writ petition can well be urged before the CESTAT." 7. This Court is not persuaded to take a different view in the present petition for both the reasons noted hereinbefore viz., the petition is premature since no notification has yet been issued by the Central Government consequent upon the Final Finding dated 4th July, 2017 ....