The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised when an efficacious and adequate alternative statutory remedy is available.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

CM Appl.No. 4294/2021

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1493/2021 & CM Appl.No. 4293/2021

3. The Petitioners in the present case have challenged the final findings dated 27th November, 2020 issued by the Respondent No. 1 - Designated Authority, Directorate General of Trade Remedies, Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. of India (hereinafter DA ).

4. The background is that the Petitioners had filed their materials and submitted various documents with respect to the anti-dumping investigation relating to import of New Pneumatic Radial Tyres of Rubber for Buses and Lorries, initiated by the DA vide notification dated 2nd December, 2019. The Petitioners submit that they had suo motu filed their responses along with documents. On 25th August, 2020, Petitioners submitted verification documents to the DA in compliance with the email/notice dated 3 rd August, 2020. On 21st October, 2020, the Petitioners participated in the oral hearings conducted by the DA, in accordance with Rule 6(6) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped articles and for Determination of injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter, Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995). However they were surprised to see a nonconfidential version of the disclosure statement dated 13 th November, 2020 issued by the DA, wherein all the responses/submissions made by the Petitioners were rejected on the simple ground that it was not in the proper format and the prescribed rules in submission of these information was not followed by the Petitioners.

5. The challenge in the present petition is on the ground that since none of the material submitted by the Petitioners has been considered, the final findings are liable to be set aside and the Respondent ought to be directed to consider the said material.

6. On behalf of the Respondents it is submitted that the writ petition is pre-mature. Reliance is placed on the following two judgments of Designated Authority & Ors. v. Sandisk International Limited & Ors., (2018) 13 SCC 402 and Saurashtra Chemicals Limited v. Union of India, (2009) 17 SCC 529.

7. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Tushar Jarwal, appearing for the Applicant/JK Tyre and Industries Limited before the authority has also taken the same stand that the writ petition is pre-mature and cannot be entertained at the stage of final finding.

8. This Court has been consistent in its view on challenges raised at the stage of final finding which is clear from perusal of judgment in Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. v. Designated Authority, Directorate General of AntiDumping and Allied Duties/Ministry of Finance, [W.P.(C) 6267/2017, decided on 24th July, 2017], the Division Bench has held as under:

6. This Court has in its order dated 16th May, 2017 in W.P.(C) 2632/2017 (Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Union of India) declined to entertain a writ petition, challenging the Final Finding of the DA on account of the availability to the Petitioner there of an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal before the CESTAT. In the said decision, this Court referred to and distinguished the above decision of the Gujarat High Court in Nirma Limited v. Union of India (supra). This Court preferred to follow its earlier decisions in AlcatelLucent India Ltd. v. Designated Authority, (2016) 338 ELT 397 (Del.); PTA Users Association v. Union India, (2016) 340 ELT 125 (Del.) and Balaji Action Buildwell v. Union of India, (2016) 337 ELT 166 (Del.) in which this Court had consistently declined to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Final Finding of the DA without the Petitioner exhausting the statutory remedy of an appeal before the CESTAT. In Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Union of India (supra), the Court explained:

"10. The question is not whether this Court can entertain