Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C. Vs Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGRT) & Anr. (Calcutta High Court)
Calcutta High Court held that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on account of lack of jurisdiction in as much as the alleged infringements has occurred in Delhi and not in West Bengal. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.
Facts- This writ petition assails the Final Findings rendered by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies on September 23, 2025 under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti- Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 framed thereunder. Notably, the impugned Final Findings reveal that the same have been rendered by the Designated Authority upon conducting an investigation based on an application filed before it by the Chemicals and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Association of India requesting for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Mono Ethylene Glycol originating in or exported from the State of Kuwait, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Singapore. It further reveals that the data pertaining to injury information was provided by Reliance Industries Limited.
Conclusion- Held that the petitioner has approached this Court on the basis of an apprehension that it’s business within the territory of West Bengal would suffer adversely if a notification is issued by the Union Government thereby imposing anti-dumping duty upon accepting the recommendation of the Designated Authority. The lis before this Court, as already indicated hereinabove, is only with regard to the violation of the petitioner’s right to fair treatment and fair adjudication based on the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not with regard to the petitioner’s apprehension of loss of business in West Bengal. In such view of the matter, the petitioner’s apprehension cannot form the basis of the present writ petition in West Bengal. Thus, this Court is unable to entertain the present writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Since this Court is not entertaining the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the arguments pertaining to availability of alternative remedy, violation of principles of natural justice and other points raised by the parties and the judgments cited in support thereof are not being dealt with.
