2020 Supreme(Guj) 464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.R. Brahmbhatt, A.G. Uraizee, JJ.
Bodal Chemicals Ltd. & Others - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Others - Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 13485 of 2017
Decided On : 20-02-2020

Point of Law:
Court's power under Article 226 are not curtail on account of the existence of remedy of notice, even if one exists. However, the fine principles of law laid down time and again by the Apex Court and reiterated in many judgments needs to be borne in mind while examining the challenge to merely initiation.

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226 and 227 and Articles 14, 19(1) (g), 265 & 300-A - Petitioners by way of this petition have approached this Court invoking may be pleased to issue a Writ of prohibition or a writ in nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction completely and permanently prohibiting Respondent their servants and agents from taking any action pursuant to initiation Notification essentially challenge - Alleging that same is without authority of law contrary to Act and Rules and based on assumptions and presumptions without any basis and without examination of preconditions of initiation of a valid investigation - Petitioner Company is engaged in business of manufacture of various chemicals and has a factory at Plot petitioner is Director of company - Petitioners have further contended that producers who are opposing investigation are producing more than respondent and therefore respondent cannot be said to be a producer of a major proportion of total production of Refined Naphthalene - Initiation Notification was issued by respondent on basis of averments made by respondent Chemicals & Industries Ltd in their application respondent in initiation notification does not examine or record his determination which is mandatory as a pre-condition of for valid initiation - Held, Court is of considered view that for aforesaid reasons especially when notification impugned is not in any manner causing any prejudice to petitioners has not pleaded any special prejudice Court need not interfere therewith - It goes without saying that detail observations made are only for purpose of examining challenge to notification and same shall have no bearing upon investigation - Court's power are not curtail on account of existence of remedy of notice even if one exists fine principles of law laid down time and again by Apex Court and reiterated in many judgments needs to be borne in mind while examining challenge to merely initiation - Court is of view that had there been a jurisdictional deficiency going into root of initiation perhaps matter would have require to be examined differently but in instant case perusal of notification impugned when clearly indicate that authority has considered acts which were required to be taken into consideration sub-abrasion in form of withdrawal of submission of those supporters in itself would not be an omission warranting interference by Court - Court is view that petition is filed when challenging only initiation and when authority has not concluded as could be seen from notification impugned before this Court would be slow in interfering therewith as it would rather require embarking upon further probing which may not be appropriate - Petition dismissed (Paras 31 to 33)

Facts of the Case:

Respondent no.3 i.e. M/s. Himadri Chemicals & Industries Ltd., has filed an application for imposition of Antidumping duty on imports of Naphthalene. It is contended that while seeking initiation, the respondent no.3 has mischievously given truncated information of total domestic industries account for a major proportion of the total production in India in terms of Rule 2(b) of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). It is alleged that the respondent no.3 while claiming itself to be domestic industry has excluded production of refined naphthalene used captively from the total domestic production to mislead respondent no.2 while applying preconditions of Rule 2(b) of the said Rules.

Finding of the Court:

Court is of considered view that for aforesaid reasons especially when notification impugned is not in any manner causing any prejudice to petitioners has not pleaded any special prejudice Court need not interfere therewith - It goes without saying that detail observations made are only for purpose of examining challenge to notification and same shall have no bearing upon investigation - Court's power are not curtail on account of existence of remedy of notice even if one exists fine principles of law laid down time and again by Apex Court and reiterated in many judgments needs to be borne in mind while examining challenge to merely initiation - Court is of view that had there been a jurisdictional deficiency going into root of initiation perhaps matter would have require to be examined differently but in instant case perusal of notification impugned when clearly indicate that authority has considered acts which were required to be taken into consideration sub-abrasion in form of withdrawal of submission of those supporters in itself would not be an omission warranting interference by Court - Court is view that petition is filed when challenging only initiation and when authority has not concluded as could be seen from notification impugned before this Court would be slow in interfering therewith as it would rather require embarking upon further probing which may not be appropriate.

Result: Petition dismissed