Lanxess Belgium N. V. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Gujarat High Court)
High Court Cannot Venture Into ‘Terra Incognita’ of Anti-Dumping Valuations: Gujarat HC Relegates Exporter to Appeal before CESTAT
The petitioner, a Belgium-based manufacturer of Sulphenamides Accelerators, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash the Final Findings dated 20 March 2026 in Case No. AD(OI)-49/2024 and Notification No. 11/2026-Customs (ADD) dated 19 June 2026. The petitioner manufactures the product under European quality standards and asserted that its exports to India are priced higher than those of respondent No. 3.
The anti-dumping investigation originated from an application filed by respondent No. 3 under Rule 5 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The petitioner alleged that the Designated Authority initiated the investigation through the notification dated 31 December 2024 without carrying out the mandatory pre-initiation scrutiny regarding the accuracy, adequacy and sufficiency of the material submitted by respondent No. 3. Subsequently, by notice dated 10 February 2025, the Designated Authority determined the final scope of the product by adopting the Product Control Number (PCN) methodology.
The petitioner submitted that the Designated Authority failed to disclose the computation, methodology and basis adopted for determining the exporter-specific dumping margin and injury margin. Referring to Rule 16 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, it argued that the failure to disclose the detailed working deprived it of a meaningful opportunity to identify factual, methodological and computational errors before issuance of the final findings, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner further contended that the landed value of imports from the People’s Republic of China was lower than imports from the European Union and, under Rule 11 read with Annexures I and II, a lower landed value should mathematically result in a higher injury margin. It submitted that the impugned findings reflected an anomalous outcome, indicating errors in computation of landed value, non-injurious price, injury margin or application of the lesser duty rule. It also alleged non-compliance with Rule 5(3), asserting that the mandatory examination of prima facie evidence regarding dumping, injury and causal link before initiation of the investigation had not been undertaken. The petitioner relied on Reliance Industries v. Designated Authority and Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority. It further argued that the alternative remedy under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act did not bar the writ petition in view of the alleged violations of natural justice and statutory procedure, relying on Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Radha Krishna Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh.
