IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6544 of 2010 Date of decision: 8.10.2010 JSL Limited. -----Petitioner. Vs. Union of India and another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. S.K. Bagaria, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Puneet Bali & Jitender Singh Advocates for the petitioner. Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondents. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of findings dated 24.11.2009, notified by the designated authority i.e. Directorate General of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties, excluding the items in question from the purview of anti dumping. The notification has been issued under the provisions of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short, “the Act”) and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury Rules, 1995 (for short, “the Rules”). 2. The petitioner earlier filed CWP No.19322 of 2009 which was disposed of on 18.12.2009. It was observed that plea CWP No.6544 of 2010 of the petitioner that there was deficiency in the investigation and that the designated authority had failed to take into account the view point of the petitioner, could be considered by the Central Government. 3. In the petition now filed, stand of the petitioner is that inspite of observations in the order of this Court, the Central Government has not looked into the view point of the petitioner. 4. In the reply filed on behalf of the Central Government, it has been stated that application has been filed by the petitioner for mid term review under Rule 23 of the Rules before the designated authority, which was being considered. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents suggests that the petitioner can be given a hearing on all relevant issues including the issues raised in this writ petition and decision thereon, can be taken by the designated authority in accordance with law. 6. In view of above, it is not necessary to go into the issues raised in the writ petition at this stage. We, however, direct that proceedings be expedited and as far as possible, concluded within six months. 7. The petition stands disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 08, 2010 (ALOK SINGH) ashwani JUDGE 2