Availability of alternative statutory remedy under Section 9C of Customs Tariff Act bars writ jurisdiction.

The Petitioner, a Belgian company manufacturing Sulphenamides Accelerators, challenged the Final Findings (dated 20.03.2026) and Notification No. 11/2026-Customs (dated 19.06.2026) which imposed anti-dumping duties

Respondent No. 3 (domestic industry) had filed an application alleging dumping, leading to an investigation by Respondent No. 2 (Designated Authority)

The Petitioner alleged that the investigation was initiated without proper verification

The Petitioner alleged that the Designated Authority failed to disclose the methodology used to calculate dumping and injury margins, thereby violating Rule 16 of the Anti-Dumping Rules

The Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming the margins were mathematically impossible and reached in violation of natural justice

1. Whether the Petitioner can be relegated to the alternative efficacious remedy of an appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, instead of the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226.

2. Whether the impugned proceedings were conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and statutory Anti-Dumping Rules so as to warrant extraordinary judicial interference.

Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which provides a statutory right of appeal to the CESTAT against orders of determination regarding dumping

The principle from Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Radha Krishna Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, which holds that while alternative remedies do not bar Article 226 jurisdiction, interference is typically reserved for cases involving lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or breach of fundamental rights

Rules 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Rules, 1995, regarding the procedure for investigation, confidentiality, and determination of injury

The Court observed that Section 9C provides a robust mechanism for CESTAT to examine the legality of Final Findings

Regarding the alleged violation of natural justice, the Court scrutinized the disclosure statement and found that the Designated Authority had shared relevant non-confidential data, provided opportunities for oral hearings, and maintained business confidentiality as per Rule 7

The Court determined that the Petitioner’s grievances regarding "mathematically impossible" injury margins and faulty valuation methodologies were technical matters requiring expert scrutiny

Since the Designated Authority acted as an expert body and followed the prescribed procedural steps, the High Court declined to venture into terra incognita (unknown territory) of complex economic valuations

The Court also noted that another party had already filed an appeal before CESTAT challenging the same findings, making the Tribunal the more appropriate forum

The Court answered that the Petitioner must avail of the alternative remedy under Section 9C of the Act

The Petitioner was granted liberty to approach the CESTAT to challenge the Final Findings and the Notification