SANJIV KHANNA, J.

This order and judgment would decide the preliminary objection raised by the third respondent, M/s Fibertex Personal Care SDN BHD, not to exercise our discretion to entertain the present Writ Petition in view of the alternative statutory appellate remedy available to the petitioner under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (“CT Act” for short) before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“Appellate Tribunal” for short).

2. M/s. Jindal Poly Film Limited vide the present writ petition has challenged the legality and validity of the termination order No.14/23/2015-DGAD dated 2nd September, 2017 passed by the Designated Authority under Rule 14 of the Customs Tariff (Anti Dumping) Rules, 1995 [“Rules” for short].

3. On 17th March, 2016, the petitioner had filed an application for initiation of anti-dumping investigation on imports of Non-Woven fabric originating and exported from the China PR, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Saudi-Arabia on the ground that they were causing injury to the domestic industry. Thereupon, the Designated Authority had issued public notice on 15th June, 2016 in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules to determine existence, degree and effect of alleged dumping and to decide whether to recommend and specify the amount of anti-dumping duty that would be adequate to remove injury to the domestic industry. The period of investigation selected by the Designated Authority was 9 months from 1st July, 2015 to 31st March, 2016. Interested parties had consequently submitted information and evidences. On 2nd August, 2017, the Designated Authority had issued disclosure statement under Rule 16 containing essential facts under consideration that would form basis of the final findings. However, by the impugned order dated 2nd September, 2017, the Designated Authority had issued termination order holding that the product under consideration being exported to India from the subject countries (Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia and China PR) was not below its normal value, except in case of Toray Polytech (Nantong) Company Limited, China and Asahi Kasei Spunbound (Thailand) Company Limited. It was also concluded that there was only one producer from China PR for which dumping and injury margin was positive. With regard to imports from Asahi Kasei Spun bound (Thailand) Company Limited the injury margin was negative. Price undercutting from all subject countries was negative and there was no causal link between the imports and material injury to the domestic industry.

4. The writ petitioner resists and questions the plea of alternative remedy, stating that the appellate remedy under Section 9C of the CT Act cannot be invoked against the termination order under Rule 14 of the Rules. An appeal under Section 9C of the CT Act, lies only against an “order of determination” which requires a positive final finding under Rule 17 by the Designated Authority recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty and acceptance by the Central Government by way of a notification under Rule 18 of the Rules imposing anti-dumping duty at the rate not exceeding the margin of dumping determined by the Designated Authority under Rule 17 of the Rules. When the Designated Authority terminates the proceeding, or gives negative final opinion under Rule 17, or the Central Government does not issue notification under Rule 18, there is no “order of determination” and hence no appeal lies under Section 9C of the CT Act.

5. To decide the preliminary objection, we must examine the scope and ambit of Section 9C of the CT Act. We begin by reproducing Sections 9A and 9C of the CT Act and Rules 3, 4, 14, 17, 18 and 23 of the Rules, i.e. the Customs Tarrif (Anti Dumping) Rules, 1995.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Section 9A and Section 9C of the CT Act, read as under:-

“9A (1) where any article is exported by an exporter or producer from any country or territory (hereafter in this section referred to as the exporting country or terr