A.P. THAKER, J.

1. Rule. Learned advocates appearing for the respective respondents waive service of rule. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Article 14, 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the action of respondent no.2 to refuse initiation of investigation for review of anti-dumping duty for the purpose of continuation of existing anti-dumping duty for a further period of 5 years in respect of imports of certain rubber chemicals viz. (a) MBT, CBS, TDQ, PVI and TMT (for short “subject goods), originating in or exported from China PR (for short “subject country”) and (b) PX-13 (6PPD) (for short “subject goods”) originating in or exported from China PR and Korea RP (for short “subject country”) by way of communication/order dated 24.12.2018 with following prayers:-

“27. …....

(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash and set aside Impugned order dated December 24, 2018 issued by the Respondent no.2 and annexed at Annexure-A hereo; and

(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus so as to direct the Respondent No.2 to initiate Sunset Review investigation under the provisions of Section 9A(5) of the Act read with Rule 23 (1B) of the Rules and further direct the Respondent No.3 to issue an appropriate notification in terms of 2nd proviso to Section 9A(5) of the Act for extension/continuation of the Duty imposed by way of Customs Notification no.35/2014-Customs dated 24.07.2014 for a period not exceeding 1 year pending the outcome of Sunset Review before the expiry of the period of original notification, that is, on or before July 23, 2019;

(c) Pending hearing of the petition, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant ad interim relief in terms of prayer (b) above;

(d) Ex parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer (c) hereinabove; and

(e) For cost; and

(f) Such other and further orders as may be considered fit and expedient in the facts of the case be passed.”

2. Petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Mafatlal House, H.T.Parekh Marg, Back bay Reclamation, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 and one of its manufacturing facilities in the State of Gujarat at the address mentioned in the cause-title of the petition and petitioner no.2 is the shareholder and director of the company. It is contended that respondent no.1 is the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India under whose aegis and control the respondent no.2 (Designated Authority) is functioning. It is also contended that respondent no.2 is the Designated Authority constituted under the provisions of Rule 3 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (for short “the Rules”) and carries out its duties and functions as provided under Rule 4 of the Rules. It is also stated that respondent no.3 is Ministry of Finance, Government of India, responsible for issuing Notification for imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty under the provisions of the Act and also under 2nd proviso to Section 9A (5) of the Customs (Tariff) Act, 1975, whereas respondent no.4 is Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and is a part of Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which deals with the tasks of formulation of policy concerning levy and collection of customs etc. It is also contended that the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs is the administrative authority for its subordinate organizations, including Custom House, Central Excise and Central GST Commissionerates and the Central Revenues Control Laboratory and all the respondents are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

2.1 It is also contended that India is signatory to World Trade Organization and also a signator