The 3rd respondent herein, namely Synergies Castings Limited, which is involved in the manufacture of Cast aluminium alloy wheels, lodged a complaint with the Designated Authority under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 that some of the importers such as the writ petitioner herein are importing into India, Cast Aluminium Alloy Wheels at less than its normal value and that therefore, they have incurred a liability to pay anti dumping duty. On the said complaint, the Designated Authority initiated an investigation on 10.12.2012.

2. Since the investigation was initiated on 10.12.2012, the Designated Authority was obliged to complete the investigation and record final findings on or before 09.12.2013, by virtue of the relevant rule. However, in exercise of the power conferred by the first proviso to the said rule namely Rule 17(1), the Central Government passed an order on 06.12.2013 extending the period by three months, namely, up to 09.3.2014. Thereafter, the Designated Authority recorded a preliminary finding in terms of Rule 12(1), recommending to the Government, the imposition of provisional anti dumping duty. Accepting the recommendation of the Designated Authority, the Government of India issued a notification on 11.4.2014 imposing provisional duty.

3. Challenging the preliminary findings dated 13.01.2014 of the Designated Authority and seeking a consequential mandamus to forbear the Designated Authority from proceeding any further with the investigation, the petitioner came up with a writ petition in W.P.No. 11683 of 2014. Simultaneously, the petitioner also came up with W.P. No.11684 of 2014 challenging the notification of the Government of India dated 11.4.2014, imposing provisional duty. Both these writ petitions were admitted and an interim order was passed directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the provisional duty as a condition for staying the entire demand.

4. In the meantime, the Designated Authority appears to have made a request on 03.3.2014 for one more extension of time in terms of the first proviso to Rule 17(1), as the time originally granted was to expire on 09.3.2014. However, no extension was granted.

5. After more than a month and a half, the Government of India passed an order dated 30.4.2014 granting extension of time retroactively from 09.3.2014 up to 09.6.2014, in terms of the first proviso to Rule 17(1). It appears that before the officer holding the post of Designated Authority could activate the proceedings from where they were left, he was transferred on 28.5.2014 and a new officer was appointed as the Designated Authority by a gazette notification dated 29.5.2014. On the very date of his appointment, the newly appointed Designated Authority issued an electronic mail to all the parties on 29.5.2014 calling upon the parties to appear for a personal hearing at 5 pm on 30.5.2014. But, the petitioner sent a reply on 30.5.2014 claiming that the e-mail dated 29.5.2014 fixing the date of personal hearing, was received after office hours at 6.22 pm and that the same was noticed only after the office was opened on 30.5.2014 and that therefore, the time granted was totally insufficient to reach Delhi for attending the personal hearing. Therefore, the petitioner requested postponement of the hearing at least by a day. But, by another mail allegedly received at 4.42 pm on 30.5.2014, the Designated Authority informed the petitioner that no further time could be granted and that the petitioner could file written arguments.

6. Upon receipt of the said communication, the petitioner filed two writ petitions in W.P.Nos.14567 and 14568 of 2014 challenging respectively (i) the extension notification dated 30.4.2014, and (ii) the communication of the Director of the Ministry of Commerce, informing all parties about the extension of time.

7. On 06.6.2014, the writ petitions came up before a learned Judge, for orders as to admission. While ordering notice in the writ petitions, the learned Judge passed an interim order re