1. The petitioner has filed the above Writ Petition to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in the impugned preliminary findings notice dated 05.01.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and in contravention of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997 and also unconstitutional being inter alia in violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. The brief case of the petitioner is as follows:

(i) According the petitioner, the present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the correctness and legality of the notice dated 05.01.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent providing the preliminary findings in relation to the investigation for imposition of a Safeguard Duty on import of Solar Cells whether or not assembled in Modules or panels and thereby, recommending the provisional Safeguard Duty at the rate of 70% advalorem. On the basis of that the 2nd respondent has recorded its preliminary findings without permitting the petitioner to make submissions, which were specifically called for from the petitioner and other similarly interested parties (i.e.) importers and exports of Solar Cells and Modules into India.

(ii) Further according to the petitioner, inasmuch as the preliminary finding notice has been issued is in clear breach of the fundamental principles of natural justice, which mandate a hearing or at the very least a consideration of the petitioner's representations, the petitioner is challenging the same by way of this Writ Petition. Further according to the petitioner, such denial of natural justice has been committed by the 2nd respondent despite clear direction given by them, in the impugned initiation notification, to all interested parties to submit their representation within a sharp time line of 30 days.

(iii) Further, the recommendations made in the preliminary findings notice, recommending exemption of Safeguard Duty on clearance made from SEZ to DTA, is without any authority and thus bad in law. Further, the preliminary findings notice, which fails to establish irreparable damage justifying such preliminary findings, also suffers from the vice of being arbitrary and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3. The brief case of the respondents is as follows:

(i) According to the respondents, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is premature and should be dismissed in-limine. The 2nd respondent has merely issued recommendations, which in terms of Rule 4(3) of the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997, has been submitted to the Central Government. The recommendations have been issued to the Standing Board of Safeguards, chaired by the Commerce Secretary, Government of India. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be aggrieved at the present juncture, when only recommendation is made and Safeguard Duty has neither been determined nor imposed by the Government.

(ii) The petitioner cannot be an interested party, while a party could be interested in an investigation in terms of Trade Notice dated 06.09.1997 issued by the 2nd respondent, the said party is required to register itself as an interested party within 15 days from the date of publication of the Notice of Initiation. The step of registration is critical for timely completion of an investigation, since, Rule 11 of the Safeguard Rules mandates the 2nd respondent to complete the investigation within 8 months from the date of initiation of an investigation. Following the Trade Notice, the 2nd respondent in paragraph-12 of the Notice of Initiation, directed the parties, who wish to be considered as an interested party to submit a request to this effect to the Director General (Safeguards) within 15 days from the date of the notice. However, the petitioner failed to submit any such letter within the period of 15 days, which is liberally interested to app