OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the writ petitions arise out of common issue, they are taken up together for final disposal. The brief facts arising out of the writ petitions are as follows:-

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the second respondent is illegal, wrong and without justification. He further contended that the second respondent has not satisfied himself as to whether the fourth respondent-Domestic Company, who is a manufacturer of the like article and like articles means an article which is identical or alike in all respects to the article under investigation for being dumped in India. The specific plea of the petitioner right through the investigation proceedings is that the three grades of subject goods should not be a part of Anti-dumping investigation. He further specifically pointed out that Grades EN 1.4509 and EN 1.4512 claimed to be produced by JSL, the above mentioned fourth respondent are not as per specifications promulgated by EN and as such it cannot be said that identical goods are being manufactured in India by the domestic industry; Grades 1.4003 is not produced and sold by JSL. Further JSL does not produce and sell any other grade which can effectively substitute Grade 1.4003 of the subject goods. He further contended that in support of the aforesaid submission, the petitioner along with other evidences, produced letters issued by end-users of the product under consideration and the second respondent ought to have considered the same before issuing the Final Finding Notification. It is also contended by the counsel for the petitioner that once it is proved that JSL was not manufacturing the like goods, the question of determining injury and subsequent imposition of Anti-dumping duty did not arise as there is no domestic industry in existence. It is further submitted that before issuing any final finding notification, it is mandatory for the second respondent to ensure if a domestic industry producing the like articles is in existence. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when a specific plea was raised, the same was not considered, hence, the final finding notification passed by the second respondent is only in violation of principles of natural justice. He further contended that the second respondent ought to have given reason for arriving at such conclusion showing proper application of mind. He further contended that the writ petition is maintainable and this Court also entertained writ petitions against the final finding notification. He further submitted that cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and in these circumstances, he prayed for setting aside the Final Finding Notification passed by the second respondent and allowing the writ petitions.

(3.) The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations stated in the writ petitions. He further contended that the writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground that there arose no cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court and there is alternative remedy available under the Statute. He therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. He further contended that enough opportunity was given to the petitioner to produce evidence, however, the petitioner has not produced the particulars on the particular date. Therefore, the second respondent considered the materials available on record and passed the order and also the order has to be passed in time bound manner. He further contended that the second respondent has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case and correctly came to a conclusion recommending levy of antidumping duty. He further submitted that the said Final Finding Notification has to be confirmed.