Apprehended Business Impact Not Enough: Calcutta HC Rejects Anti-Dumping Writ for Lack of Jurisdiction

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the final findings of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) recommending anti-dumping duty on imports of Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Singapore, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action arose within West Bengal. The bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai has observed that the writ petition contained no specific pleading explaining how any integral part of the cause of action arose within West Bengal. Since the alleged infringement of rights, if any, took place where the investigation and decision-making occurred, the Calcutta High Court concluded that it could not entertain the petition. The writ petition was filed by a Kuwait-based exporter assailing the DGTR’s final findings dated September 23, 2025, issued under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. The petitioner alleged serious procedural lapses in the investigation, including violation of principles of natural justice, non-disclosure of essential facts under Rule 16 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, arbitrary determination of cost of production and dumping margin, and reliance on undisclosed data while recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty. According to the petitioner, the designated authority had ignored exporter-verified data, treated a single Indian producer as the domestic industry, and drastically altered the dumping margin—allegedly converting a negative margin into a positive margin of 40–50%—without disclosing the methodology or calculations used. It was contended that repeated requests for disclosure of workings and a personal hearing after issuance of the disclosure statement were ignored, rendering the final findings arbitrary and illegal. The Union of India, the DGTR, and the domestic industry raised preliminary objections on maintainability, arguing that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction since the investigation, hearings, communications, and issuance of final findings all took place in New Delhi. It was further argued that the petitioner, being a foreign exporter, could not claim that mere apprehended business impact in West Bengal constituted a cause of action. The respondents also contended that the final findings were only recommendatory in nature and that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act. The petitioner countered that apprehension of injury to its business due to possible imposition of anti-dumping duty was sufficient to give rise to a cause of action within West Bengal. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents to argue that writ jurisdiction could be invoked even at the stage of final findings, particularly where violations of natural justice were alleged. After an extensive review of constitutional principles governing territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2), the High Court held that only those facts which are integral, material, and directly connected to the relief sought can constitute a cause of action. The Court observed that the core challenge in the writ petition related to alleged procedural impropriety, arbitrariness, and violation of Rule 16 by the designated authority—acts which undisputedly occurred outside West Bengal. The speculative apprehension that the petitioner’s business might be affected in West Bengal if anti-dumping duty were imposed was held to be insufficient and irrelevant for establishing territorial jurisdiction. On this ground alone, the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioner at liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction, including the statutory appellate mechanism. Case Details Case Title: The Kuwait Olefins Company K.S.C.C Vs. Directorate General of Trade Remedies & Ors. Case No.: WPA 26134 of 2025 Date: 22.12.2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Rishi Raju, Adv. Counsel For Respondent: Asoke Kumar Chakraborty, Ld. ASGI Click Here To Read Order Read More: CESTAT Ignored Suo-Motu EOU De-Bonding Clarification; Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Order And Remands Back

Apprehended Business Impact Not Enough: Calcutta HC Rejects Anti-Dumping Writ for Lack of Jurisdiction

Membership Required

Latest articles

MSMED Amendment Act, 2026: TReDS-Based Invoice Settlement, 90-Day Dispute Resolution and Stricter Penalties Introduced for MSMEs

Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026: CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, SAT and DRTs Brought Under Common Framework With National Tribunals Commission

CAG Flags ₹25,085 Crore Taxation Lapses in 1,902 Cases; Excess Tax Charges Found in 174 Assessments

Can Strategic Investments Escape S. 14A Disallowance? ITAT Holds Rule 8D Can Apply After AO Records Satisfaction

More like this

MSMED Amendment Act, 2026: TReDS-Based Invoice Settlement, 90-Day Dispute Resolution and Stricter Penalties Introduced for MSMEs

Tribunals Reforms Act, 2026: CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, SAT and DRTs Brought Under Common Framework With National Tribunals Commission

CAG Flags ₹25,085 Crore Taxation Lapses in 1,902 Cases; Excess Tax Charges Found in 174 Assessments

About us

Company

Categories