The apprehension of business harm does not establish territorial jurisdiction for a writ petition; actual adverse impacts must be connected to the legal grounds of the claim.

JUDGMENT :

OM NARAYAN RAI, J.

1. This writ petition assails the Final Findings rendered by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (hereafter "the Designated Authority") 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 (hereafter "the said Rules") framed thereunder.

2. 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 (i.e. the respondent no. 3 herein) requesting for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Mono Ethylene Glycol (hereafter the “subject goods”) 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 (the respondent no. 4 herein).

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

3. A brief factual foundation of the writ petition may first be noticed:-

a. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Kuwait. It is aggrieved by the Final Findings rendered by the Designated Authority whereby the Designated Authority has recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the subject countries which includes Kuwait.

b. The petitioner asserts that the impugned determination by the Designated Authority has been done pursuant to an application filed by the respondent no.3 and the same is based on the date provided by the respondent no.4 alone. It has been alleged that the Designated Authority has conducted a unilateral analysis treating the respondent no.4 as the sole domestic producer and has ignored information related to other known domestic producers.

c. It has been alleged that the investigation leading to the impugned determination is the third in series with the first two having ended without imposition of anti-dumping duty. While one of the earlier investigations that was initiated on December 9, 2019 got terminated on November 20, 2020 upon the request of the respondent no. 4, the later investigation which was initiated by the Designated Authority on June 28, 2021 ended with a determination by the Designated Authority on October 27, 2022 observing that there was no requirement for imposition of anti-dumping duty.

d. The writ petition further avers that such Final Findings were subjected to appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter “CESTAT”) as well as at the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi whereupon both the forums remanded the matter back to the Designated Authority for fresh investigation. However, the second investigation got terminated on November 27, 2024 upon a request for withdrawal made by the respondent no. 4.

e. It has been then stated that by a notification dated September 27, 2024, the Designated Authority invited comments from the petitioner and other participants regarding the scope of the products to be covered under the investigation and the Product Control Numbers.

f. The writ petition then proceeds with the details of the several stages of the investigation in which the petitioner participated inter alia by submitting questionnaire responses; responses pertaining to cost verification and sales verification and also by attending o