1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.879 OF 2008 M/s.Philips Electronics India Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Union of India & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Vikram Nankani with M.R.Baya, for Petitioner. Mr.R.V.Desai, Sr. Advocate with Mr.A.S.Rao, for Respondent nos. 1 & 3. Mr.R.K.Abhichandani, Sr.Advocate with Rajesh Sharma i/b. Abhay Kulkarni, for Respondent no.4. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED: 14th August, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition, basically, the petitioner 2 is challenging the recommendations made by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1 for imposing anti-dumping duty under the Customs Tariff Act,1975. The recommendations obviously are not binding on the Central Government. It is for the Central Government to consider whether to accept the recommendations and impose provisional duty or not to accept the recommendations and not to impose provisional duty. In our opinion, challenge to the recommendations cannot be entertained under the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, we have been pointed out the judgments one of Delhi High Court in the case “Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochem Vs. Designated Authority, 2006(203) E.L.T. 370(Del.)” and another of Gujrat High Court in the case “Surefaces Plus Vs. Union of India, 2004(173) E.L.T. 127 (Guj.)” where the petitioner was permitted to make representation before the Central Government against the recommendations made by the respondent no.2 Designated authority and the Government was directed consider that representation before deciding the question whether the recommendations made by the designated authority are to be accepted or rejected. 3 In our opinion, therefore, the interest of justice will be served by making the following order:- In case the petitioner submits a representation to the respondent no.1 in relation to the recommendations made by the respondent no.2 which are subject matter of this petition, within a period of one week from today, the respondent no.1 shall consider that representation before deciding whether to accept the recommendations or not to accept the recommendations. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)