Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Exxonmobil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioner - Exxonmobil Asia Pacific PTE Ltd. group challenging the final findings in Case No. AD (OI) -18/2023 dated 28th December, 2024 issued by the Designated Authority, Directorate General of Trade Remedies (Hereinafter ‘DGTR’).
3. Vide the impugned order, DGTR has recommended imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (hereinafter ‘ADD’) under Rule 17 of Customs Tariff (identification, assessment and collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on dumped articles and for determination of injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter ‘ADD Rules’).
4. The product in question is Halo-butyl-rubber (hereinafter ‘HIIR’) which is imported into India from Japan, Russia, Singapore, United Kingdom and United States of America (subject countries). The impugned order was passed pursuant to the application submitted by Respondent No.3/Domestic Industry to DGTR under the Customs Tariff Act seeking imposition of ADD.
5. In terms of Rule 18 of the ADD Rules, the Central Government has to, within three months of the publication of the final findings, decide to impose ADD or take a dec
A challenge to final findings regarding Anti-Dumping Duty is premature until the Central Government decides on the recommendation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be exercised when an efficacious and adequate alternative statutory remedy is avail....
The court underscored that challenges to final findings of the Designated Authority are preemptively barred when efficacious statutory remedies are available.
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.
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 requires a part of the cause of action to arise within the jurisdiction; mere apprehension of harm does not suffice.
Section 35 F of Act is concerned, this speaks of mandatory deposit of service, percentage of amount in dispute while filing Appeal before the CESTAT and same has been brought on statute book from 06.....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
