ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents. The writ petition, in W.P.No.5121 of 2012, had been filed challenging the Initiation Notification, dated 13.6.2011, issued by the first respondent, under the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, read with Sections 9A and 9B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, relating to the goods classified as `Digital Offset Printing Plates' originating in or exported from China PR and Japan. 2. The writ petition, in W.P.No.10379 of 2012, had been filed challenging the preliminary findings, dated 16.3.2012, rendered by the third respondent, pertaining to the imposition/levy of anti-dumping duty on import of `Digital Offset Printing Plates' originating in or exported from China PR and Japan. 3. The writ petition, in W.P.No.10380 of 2012, had been filed challenging the post decisional findings, dated 9.2.2012, rendered by the third respondent, in so far as it relates to the finding that `Computer to Conventional Plates' are also digital plates. 4. In respect of the writ petitions, in W.P.Nos.10379 and 10380 of 2012, it has been stated that the Anti-Dumping proceedings had been initiated at the behest of the fourth respondent. Even before the filing of the petition, before the third respondent, the fourth respondent had lodged a complaint with regard to the imposition of Safe Guard Duty on the import of aluminium rolls and sheets, which is the basic raw material used to manufacture digital printing plates. In fact, the fourth respondent had filed a petition before the Director General of Safe Guards, on 29.4.2011, stating that the imposition of Safe Guard Duty, which is product specific, on import of aluminium from China PR, is causing hardship to the fourth respondent, domestic industry. Pursuant to the petition made by the fourth respondent, the third respondent had initiated anti-dumping proceedings, vide its Initiation Notification, dated 13.6.2011. While the proceedings were pending, an order had been passed by the Director General of Safe Guard, on 13.10.2011, terminating the Safe Guard Duty on import of aluminium. However, without considering the said crucial aspect the third respondent had proceeded with the antidumping proceedings and had issued the preliminary findings, on 16.3.2012, recommending the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on import of digital plates used in the printing industry. However, without considering the said crucial aspect the third respondent had proceeded with the antidumping proceedings and had issued the preliminary findings, on 16.3.2012, recommending the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on import of digital plates used in the printing industry. Thereafter, the second respondent had issued a notification, dated 4.6.2012, imposing provisional Anti-Dumping duty on the import of digital plates from China PR and Japan, under Rule 13 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. 5. It has been further stated that the preliminary findings, dated 16.3.2012, would show that submissions had been made by various importers, exporters, users and user associations, including the petitioners herein. One of the main submissions made on their behalf was that the fourth respondent had clearly and categorically pleaded, before the Safe Guard authorities, that it is suffering on imposition of Safe Guard Duty on import of aluminium. In fact the fourth respondent had wanted the withdrawal of the Safe Guard Duty or in the alternative, imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty on the import of digital plates. Since, the Safe Guard Duty was no longer in force, from 13.10.2011, there was no injury to the fourth respondent, domestic industry. However, the said material aspect had been completely ignored by the third respondent, while making its recommendations. 6. It has been further submitted that the recommendations made by the third respondent has serious ramifications, not only for the domestic industry, but also for the importers and the users of the products under consideration, as the recommendations would have to be considered by the Government for imposition of provisional or final Anti-Dumping duty. In fact the second respondent had already imposed provisional Anti-Dumping Duty, vide its notification, dated 4.6.2012, based on the recommendations of the third respondent. 7. It has been further stated that the Anti-Dumping authority, acting under the relevant rules, is a quasi judicial authority. Therefore, the third respondent ought to have applied objective standards, based on the material information or evidence presented by the interested parties. The third respondent is to decide a `lis' between the parties supporting the levy of duty and those who are imposing it. Therefore, the Designated Authority ought to have recorded a finding, while determining the injury that may be caused to the domestic industry and a causal link should be shown to exist between the dumped imports and the injury caused thereby, by taking into account all the relevant facts. Therefore, the Designated Authority ought to have recorded a finding, while determining the injury that may be caused to the domestic industry and a causal link should be shown to exist between the dumped imports and the injury caused thereby, by taking into account all the relevant facts. 8. It has been further stated that there has been a blatant violation of Rule 11, read with Annexure-II of the Anti-Dumping Rules, as the specific stand of the importers and users that there is no injury to the domestic industry on account of the withdrawal of the import duty had been ignored. While so, the third respondent had rendered the preliminary findings. It has been further submitted that an appeal could be filed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, against the final findings. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners had raised various grounds and had relied on a number of decisions in support of their contentions, with regard to the arbitrary and illegal proceedings of the Designated Authority, the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, New Delhi, in issuing the Initiation Notification of anti-dumping investigation, dated 13.6.2011, and the preliminary findings, dated 16.3.2012, and the post decisional findings, dated 9.2.2012. However, the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that final findings had been rendered by the authority concerned, on 3.10.2012, and therefore, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners have become infructuous. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had further stated that it would be open to the petitioners to challenge the final findings of the authority concerned, by way of an appeal, before the Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, if so advised. 10. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on a decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, dated 14.10.2011, made in W.P.No.6791 of 2011, in support of their contentions. 11. 10. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on a decision of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, dated 14.10.2011, made in W.P.No.6791 of 2011, in support of their contentions. 11. In such circumstances, this Court, without going into the merits of the matter finds it appropriate to hold that in view of the fact that the final findings had been rendered by the Designated Authority concerned, on 3.10.2012, it would be open to the petitioners to challenge the same, by way of an appeal, before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, in the manner known to law, if so advised. Accordingly, in view of the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioners, by way of an appeal, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.