The main legal point established in the judgment is that a writ petition solely seeking a refund of money, without a demand for justice and unreasonably delayed, is not ordinarily maintainable. The court also emphasized that a prospective decision of the Supreme Court does not give rise to a cause of action for a petition.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, although challenges the validity of the notifications dated 13 January, 2012 and 19 January, 2017 issued by the respondents providing for a levy of anti-dumping duty, the real intention of the petitioner is to avail refund of anti-dumping duty paid by the petitioner in relation to the imports of the petitioner for the period from 13 January, 2012 to 12 January, 2018.

2. The questions which would primarily arise for consideration are two fold – firstly, whether a belated prayer to assail the notifications in question would be maintainable and secondly, whether under the grab of assailing such notifications, a prayer for money claim ought to be entertained.

3. The prayers in the petition are required to be noted, which reads thus:

(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the first impugned notification dated 13 January 2012, issued by the Respondent No. 1 (being Exhibit ‘D’ hereto) and after going into the validity and Iegality thereof to quash the same.

(b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling for records pertaining to the second impugned notification dated 19 January, 2017, issued by the Respondent No. 1 (being Exhibit ‘E’ hereto) and after going into the validity and legality thereof to quash the same.

(c) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct respondent no. 2 to refund the Anti-Dumping Duty amounted to Rs. 9,24,97,208/- collected under the impugned notifications along with the interest at the appropriate rate.”

4. At the outset, we may observe that the petition is thoroughly misconceived to say the least and for the reasons which are more than one. We may observe that the petition lacks even the basic pleadings on facts as to how the cause of action as purportedly arisen to the petitioner, can be said to be a live cause of action so as to persuade this Court to exercise its discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, including to discard the well settled principles of delay and laches. It is well settled that the Court would be loath to entertain a writ petition which espouses a stale cause of action or a belated attempt of a litigant to seek a relief for which even a civil suit, if filed would be barred by limitation. The facts as narrated hereunder would aid our opening observations.

5. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the business of import of Nylon Filament yarn. During the period from 13 January 2012 to 12 January, 2018, the petitioner had imported such materials from different countries, being the period covered under the impugned notifications issued in exercise of powers under Section 9A(1) and 9A(5) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in regard to the levy of anti dumping duty as paid by the petitioner.

6. It is the petitioner’s case that anti-dumping duty on import of specified Nylon Filament Yarn from People's Republic of China, Chinese Taipei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and People’s Republic of Korea was imposed on such materials. The petitioner has merely set out the brief facts, in relation to the notifications dated 29 August, 2006 (No. 85 of 2006) by which antidumping duty on import of such materials was imposed. It is contended that thereafter on 27 August 2010, the Designated Authority vide Notification no. 15/14/2010-DGAD had initiated a sunset review of anti-dumping duty imposed by Notification No. 85 of 2006 and recommended for extension of the anti-dumping duty. It is contended that on 9 December, 2010, respondent no. 1 issued Notification No.123 of 2010 - Customs, amending Notification No. 85 of 2006 by adding paragraph 3 in the