JINDAL STAINLESS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition assails the Notification/Final Finding dated 13.9.2005 on the subject of Mid-term Review of Anti-dumping Duty imposed against imports of Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel from European Union, USA, Japan and Canada. The Order in terms records that none of the exporters from EU, USA and Canada has given any information on the Questionnaire and that the exporters from Japan were non-cooperative. The impugned Order itself mentions that an Appeal against it shall lie before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act. It is in this connection that an objection concerning the maintainability of the Writ Petition has been raised on behalf of the Respondents.

(2.) I had the opportunity of considering similar issues in WP(C) No.10615/2005 entitled Kalyani Steels vs. Union of India in which an Order dated 20.5.2005 was assailed. This Order was the Final Finding on the subject of Midterm Anti Dumping Review investigations in the matter relating to imports of certain types/grades of alloy and non alloy steel billets, bars and rounds having 70 mm to 250 mm diameter from Russia and China. In the course of those hearings the Notification had been Gazetted. I had recorded that there was no scope for contending that a prima facie case had not been made out for the continuance of anti-dumping duties. Nevertheless, the Petitioner had been granted fifteen days time within which to file an Appeal before CESTAT. The Notification was stayed till the date on which the Tribunal fixed the matter for public hearing. A similar order is pressed for in these proceedings.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has conceded that the remedy of an Appeal is wider and more comprehensive then a Writ Petition, and therefore, cannot but be a more efficacious remedy. He, however, contends that CESTAT has expressed the opinion in Indian Spinners Association vs. Designated Authority, 2000 (119) E.L.T. 299 (Tribunal) that an Appeal against a Final-Finding of the Designated Authority is not maintainable in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India, 2000 (118) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.). The view of the Tribunal is based entirely on the above pronouncement. Dismissal of an SLP in limine does not constitute a precedent as envisaged in Article 141 of the Constitution. That Order has been reproduced by the Tribunal and reads as follows: We see no reason whatsoever to entertain these Special Leave petitions. It is perfectly clear now that we have seen the provisions of the Act that the order of the Designated Authority is purely recommendatory. The appeal that lies is against the determination and that determination has to be made by the Central Government. For this reason, we decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and dismiss the Special Leave petitions.