Authority: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Order Date: 07/07/2026
Case Overview
- Petitioner: Lanxess Belgium N.V., a Belgian‑EU company manufacturing sulfenamides accelerators used in rubber products.
- Respondents: Union of India (Respondent No.1), Customs Authority (Respondent No.2), and an unnamed domestic industry party (Respondent No.3).
- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Special Civil Application No.8794 of 2026) seeking quashing of the Final Findings dated 20.03.2026 (Case No. AD(OI)-49/2024) and Notification No.11/2026‑Customs (ADD) dated 19.06.2026.
- The petitioner alleged that the anti‑dumping investigation was initiated without mandatory pre‑initiation scrutiny under Rule 5 of the Anti‑Dumping Rules, that the authority failed to disclose the computation of exporter‑specific dumping and injury margins, and that the injury margin calculation violated natural justice and statutory provisions (Rules 6, 7, 11, 16, 17, Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975).
- The petitioner contended that the landed value of imports from China was lower than from the EU, leading to a mathematically inconsistent injury margin, and that the authority did not determine export price per Section 9A.
- Respondents argued that an efficacious alternative remedy exists under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, that the anti‑dumping authority had complied with disclosure obligations, and that the matter was already before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
- The Court examined the provisions of Section 9C, which provides for appeal to CESTAT within ninety days, with specified fees and composition of a special bench.
- The Court noted that while the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be eclipsed, it may intervene only on gross violation of natural justice, statutory provisions, or lack of jurisdiction.
Final Outcome
- The Court found no gross violation of natural justice or statutory procedure; the anti‑dumping authority had disclosed relevant information and afforded parties a hearing.
- The Court observed that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before CESTAT and that a related CESTAT application (Diary No. 51523/2026) by the Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association is pending.
- Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.
- The petitioner is directed to pursue an appeal before CESTAT against the Final Findings dated 20.03.2026 and Notification No.11/2026.
Topics: Anti‑Dumping, Customs Regulation, Judicial Review