The Delhi High Court has ruled that while writ petitions challenging the determination of anti-dumping duties by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) are maintainable, courts will be cautious in intervening due to the time-sensitive nature of such processes.
Anti-dumping investigations assess whether imported goods are being sold at unfairly low prices, harming domestic industries. If confirmed, DGTR may impose anti-dumping duties on the importers of such products.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Seeks Response on Plea Against BJP Leader Parvesh Verma’s Election Victory
A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed:
"While writ petitions cannot be outrightly dismissed at the disclosure statement stage, courts will be reluctant to interfere as the determination of anti-dumping duties follows a strict timeline managed by the designated authority."
Case Background
The petitioners, engaged in importing plastic processing machines, became the subject of an anti-dumping investigation by DGTR. Following notices and responses, the DGTR issued a disclosure statement, which the petitioners subsequently challenged.
The primary argument revolved around DGTR’s alleged failure to conduct an on-site physical verification, a procedure outlined in the Manual of Operating Practices for Trade Remedy Investigations.
Arguments Presented
The Central Government’s counsel argued that the disclosure statement adhered to legal standards and that the petitioners had ample opportunity to submit objections.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Seeks Response from Atishi on Plea Alleging Corrupt Practices in Election
Counsel representing domestic industry stakeholders contended that courts should avoid entertaining writ petitions at the disclosure statement stage, as repeated judicial intervention could delay the entire process.
High Court's Observations
The court emphasized the structured nature of the anti-dumping duty imposition process:
"The imposition of anti-dumping duties extends beyond the disclosure statement. The designated authority must assess the domestic industry's injury and formulate preliminary or final findings in compliance with the rules."
Regarding physical inspections, the court clarified:
"Physical verification is not mandatory in all cases. The necessity of on-site inspections depends on the product type, the extent of injury to the domestic industry, and the data provided by exporters and suppliers. Mandating physical inspections in every case could delay investigations."
Final Ruling
The court declined to rescind the disclosure statement, allowing the petitioners to submit their responses in the specified format. It also extended the deadline for submissions to March 21, 2025, ensuring fair participation.
Read Also: 'Mere Presence at Protest Site No Ground for UAPA': Khalid Saifi Seeks Bail in 2020 Delhi Riots Case
"Petitioners may submit their responses in Excel format without altering data content. Considering the urgency of submission deadlines, an extension is granted until March 21, 2025."
As such, the petition was disposed of.
Appearance: Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vikram Naik and Mr. Pulkit Devpura, Advs for Petitioner; Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma & Mr. Rustam, Advs. for R-4 to 8. Ms. Shiva Lakshmi CGSC, with Mr. Govind Sharma, Mr. Madhav Bajaj & Mr. Neel Nikhar, Advs for R-1 to R3.
Case title: Husky Injection Molding Systems Shanghai Ltd & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 3431/2025
