Determination Of Anti-Dumping Duties Is A Time-Bound Process By Competent Authority, Writ Courts Will Be Hesitant To Interfere: Delhi HC

Anti-dumping investigation determines whether a product is being dumped in the country at a lower price, causing material injury to the domestic industry. If found true, the DGTR may impose anti-dumping duties on the importer of such products.

A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed,

"while the writ petitions cannot be held to be not maintainable at the stage of the disclosure statement, the Court would be hesitant and reluctant in exercising jurisdiction as determination of anti-dumping duty is a time bound process which is to be exercised by the designated authority."

The Petitioner was engaged in importing 'Plastic Processing Machines' which was subject matter of investigation by DGTR. Notices were issued to the Petitioner and after perusing the Petitioner's response, DGTR published a disclosure statement which came to be challenged by the Petitioner.

The challenge was primarily on the ground that DGTR did not conduct spot physical verification which is a necessary procedure as per the Manual of Operating Practices for Trade Remedy Investigations.

Counsel appearing for the Central Government submitted that the disclosure statement is in accordance with law and in any case, there would be sufficient opportunity for the Petitioner to file objections to the disclosure statement.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the domestic industry also submitted that at the stage of disclosure statement, a writ petition ought not be entertained in as much as that would lead to repeated intervention by the Court.

Agreeing, the High Court observed that the process of imposition of antidumping duty is one which is to be undertaken by the Designated Authority in an extremely time bound manner. It observed,

“The system of imposition of anti-dumping duty does not end with the disclosure statement being published. In fact, after the disclosure statement is published, the authority has to determine the nature of the injury which the domestic industry is suffering and thereafter arrive at its preliminary findings or final findings in terms of the Rules. After arriving at such findings, the anti-dumping duties are determined. The Petitioners are always at liberty to respond to the Designated Authority in respect of any grievances that they may have in the consideration of the data which has been given. In terms of the operating manual it cannot be stated that physical inspection is mandatory in every case.”

So far as physical inspection is concerned, the High Court observed, “In terms of the operating manual it cannot be stated that physical inspection is mandatory in every case. Moreover, it depends upon the product concerned, the nature of the injury which the domestic industry is suffering and the data which is furnished by the exporters/suppliers. In each and every case, if physical inspection is mandated, it would result in delay of the investigation.”

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.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 365

Case no.: W.P.(C) 3431/2025

Click here to read order