$~74 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10372/2026, CM APPL. 48024/2026 & CM APPL. 48025/2026 MANMACHINE CAR CARE PVT. LTD. AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate, Mr. AyushTanwar, Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Ms. Sidhika, Ms. Shweta Tiwari, and Mr. Ketan Saxena, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. AvshreyaPratap Singh Rudy, CGSC with Ms. Shweta Shandilya, GP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 28.07.2026 1. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is whether, in the absence of any statutory provision conferring a right to make a representation or requiring the authority to decide such representation, a Constitutional Court ought to issue directions for its consideration. 2. The Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: “A. issue a writ of certiorari, or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, quashing and setting aside the Final Findings dated 12.06.2026 bearing F. No. 6/17/2025-DGTR issued by Respondent No. 2 in Case No. AD(OI)-15/2025, insofar as they determine material injury and causal link and recommend the imposition of antidumping duty on imports of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:33:54 subject goods from China; B. issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing Respondent No. 1 and 2 to independently and objectively examine, by a reasoned and speaking order, the representations of the Petitioner and other affected interested parties, and in particular the verifiability, non-attribution, base-year distortion, market-expansion and public/economic interest objections set out herein, before taking any decision under Section 9A of the CTA read with Rule 18 of the AD Rules; C. issue a writ, order or direction restraining Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 from imposing and/or collecting anti-dumping duty on imports of the subject goods from China pursuant to the impugned Final Findings, pending such reasoned consideration; and/or D. issue a issue a writ of mandamus, or a writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, granting liberty to the Petitioners to prefer an Appeal before the Ld. Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal without being considered a non cooperating party;” 3. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners confine the present Writ Petition to a limited prayer seeking consideration of its representations dated 19.06.2026 and 22.06.2026. 4. It is not in dispute that Respondent No.2 has rendered its Final Findings in the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of “Thermoplastic Polyurethane (TPU) based Surface/Paint Protection Film” originating in or exported from the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Final Findings’). The recommendations contained in the Impugned Final Findings are yet to be accepted and notified by the Central Government. 5. Learned counsel representing the Respondents submits that despite the public notice issued during the investigation, the Petitioners did not participate in the investigation proceedings. It is submitted that in exercise of powers under Rules 6(5) and 6(6) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:33:54 Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (‘Anti-Dumping Rules’), Respondent No. 2 had invited all users, importers and user associations to register themselves as interested parties and file complete questionnaire responses within the prescribed period of thirty-seven (37) days in terms of Trade Notice No.11/2018. Despite having received written intimation dated 18.06.2025, the Petitioners neither registered themselves as an interested party nor filed the requisite Importer’s/User’s Questionnaire Response or placed any material before the Respondent No.2 during the course of the investigation. 6. Learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioners fairly submits that in the event the recommendations are accepted and notified by the Central Government, a statutory appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 would be maintainable before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘CESTAT’). 7. The Supreme Court in C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Anr., (2008) 10 SCC 115, while considering the practice of Constitutional Courts issuing directions for consideration of representations, observed as under: “14. We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasise the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for “consideration”. If the representation on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, courts should desist from directing “consideration” of such claims. 15. The present case is a typical example of “representation and relief”. The petitioner keeps quiet for 18 years after the termination. A stage is reached when no record is available regarding his previous service. In the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:33:54 representations which he makes in 2000, he claims that he should be taken back to service. But on rejection of the said representation by order dated 9-4-2002, he filed a writ petition claiming service benefits, by referring the said order of rejection as the cause of action. As noticed above, the learned Single Judge examined the claim, as if it was a live claim made in time, finds fault with the respondents for not producing material to show that termination was preceded by due enquiry and declares the termination as illegal. But as the petitioner has already reached the age of superannuation, the learned Single Judge grants the relief of pension with effect from 18-7-1982, by deeming that he was retired from service on that day. We fail to understand how the learned Single Judge could declare a termination in 1982 as illegal in a writ petition filed in 2005. We fail to understand how the learned Single Judge could find fault with the Department of Mines and Geology, for failing to prove that a termination made in 1982, was preceded by an enquiry in a proceedings initiated after 22 years, when the Department in which the petitioner had worked had been wound up as long back as in 1983 itself and the new Department had no records of his service. 16. The petitioner neither produced the order of termination, nor disclosed whether the termination was by way of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or whether it was a case of voluntary retirement or resignation or abandonment. He significantly and conveniently, produced only the first sheet of a show-cause notice dated 8-7-1982 and failed to produce the second or subsequent sheets of the said show-cause notice in spite of being called upon to produce the same. There was absolutely no material to show that the termination was not preceded by an enquiry. When a person approaches a court after two decades after termination, the burden would be on him to prove what he alleges. The learned Single Judge dealt with the matter as if he the petitioner had approached the court immediately after the termination. All this happened, because of grant of an innocuous prayer to “consider” a representation relating to a stale issue.” (Emphasis supplied.) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:33:54 8. The principle enunciated by the Supreme Court is that a direction to “consider” a representation cannot be issued as a matter of course. Such a direction cannot be employed to create a remedy where none exists in law or to compel an authority to examine a representation when no statutory obligation to do so is cast upon it. 9. In the present case, the Impugned Final Findings are only recommendatory in nature and have not yet culminated in a notification by the Central Government. Learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioners acknowledges that, upon issuance of a notification, an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, would become available. 10. At this stage, this Court finds no legal basis to direct the Respondents to decide the Petitioners’ representations, particularly in the absence of any statutory provision requiring such consideration. 11. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present Writ Petition is premature and is, accordingly, dismissed. 12. The pending applications also stand dismissed. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J SHAIL JAIN, J JULY 28, 2026/kp/shah This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2026 at 11:33:54