Arc Distribution Tableware Pvt. ... vs Designated Authority, ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 4537 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+               Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6710/2011

%                       Date of Decision: September 15, 2011

Arc Distribution Tableware Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ....Petitioners
            Through Mr. Sai Krishna with Ms. Diva Arora,
                       Advocates.

                    VERSUS

Designated Authority, Directorate of Anti
Dumping and Allied Duties & Ors.             .....Respondents
           Through Mr. Rajesh Katyal for respondents 1&2.
                      Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with
                      Mr. Rajesh Sharma for resp. 3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                              ORDER

We have heard Mr. Sai Krishna, Advocate for the petitioner

and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Sharma,

Advocate for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Rajesh Katyal for

respondent No. 1. Mr. Sandeep Sethi has placed before us the

final findings/notification dated 25th August, 2011 issued by the

Designated Authority. The said notification has not been made

subject matter of challenge in the present writ proceedings. It is

admitted before us that now the matter is pending before the

competent authority, Union of India and after decision is taken,

the order can be challenged before the Tribunal.

2. Mr. Sandeep Sethi also drawn our attention to order dated

8th September, 2011 passed in WP(C) No. 5849/2011, Kodak

(China PR) Graphic Communications Co. Ltd and Anr.

Vs. The Designated Authority and Anr., wherein we had

passed the following order:

"3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Mr. Sachin Datta, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India after obtaining instructions from Mr. Satyen Sarda, Director (Anti-Dumping) submitted the representation made before the designated authority by the petitioner with regard to his two disclosure statements shall be considered at the time of recording the final findings.

4. In view of the aforesaid, as advised at present, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to challenge the said findings, if so advised, in accordance with law. We may hasten to clarify that we have not expressed any opinion whether the said findings can be assailed or not. No order as to costs."

3. Keeping in view the aforesaid position, at this stage we are

not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and leave it

open to the petitioner to make a written representation to the

Central Government. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to

challenge any order which may be passed, if so advised, in

accordance with law.

4. The writ petition is disposed of. We clarify that no opinion

is expressed on the findings recorded by the Designated Authority.

There will be no order as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE September 15, 2011 kkb