2021 (2) TMI 383

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Puniyani G.P., Advocate for UOI. Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing). CM Appl.No. 4294/2021 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 1493/2021 & CM Appl.No. 4293/2021 3. The Petitioners in the present case have challenged the final findings dated 27th November, 2020 issued by the Respondent No. 1 - Designated Authority, Directorate General of Trade Remedies, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India (hereinafter 'DA'). 4. The background is that the Petitioners had filed their materials and submitted various documents with respect to the anti-dumping investigation relating to i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... & Ors., (2018) 13 SCC 402 and Saurashtra Chemicals Limited v. Union of India, (2009) 17 SCC 529. 7. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Tushar Jarwal, appearing for the Applicant/JK Tyre and Industries Limited before the authority has also taken the same stand that the writ petition is pre-mature and cannot be entertained at the stage of final finding. 8. This Court has been consistent in its view on challenges raised at the stage of final finding which is clear from perusal of judgment in Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. v. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties/Ministry of Finance, [W.P.(C) 6267/2017, decided on 24th July, 2017], the Division Bench has held as under: "6. This Court has in i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rity tasked specifically with reviewing the correctness of the orders of the subordinate statutory authorities. 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 no....