HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the Final Finding dated 6th March 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 complete exclusion to the petitioner herein." It is not in dispute that against the above Final Findings, the petitioner has a statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 9C of the CTA before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ('CESTAT').

(3.) Mr Gopal Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, was asked whether the petitioner was precluded in any manner from urging this very ground before the CESTAT. The question was posed in the context of three orders passed by this Court in Alcatel-Lucent India Ltd. v. Designated Authority, 2016 (338) E.L.T. 397 (Del.) : PTA Users Association v. Union of India, 2016 (340) E.L.T. 125 (Del.) and Balaji Action Buildwell v. Union of India, 2016 (337) E.L.T. 166 (Del.) where in similar circumstances, this Court declined to entertain a writ petition directly against the Final Finding of the DA without exhausting the remedy by way of an appeal before the CESTAT.