IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE BEFORE:

HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY WPO 148 of 2025 Indian Paint Association Versus The Union of India & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. S. N. Mookherjee, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. Ashish Chandra, Advocate.

Mr. Anupal Dasgupta, Adv.

Mr. Shubrojyoti Mookherjee, Adv.

Ms. Y. Mookherjee, Adv.

Mr. Arnab Roy, Adv.

For the UOI : Mr. Siddhartha Bhattacharyya, Adv.

Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.

For the respondent : Mr. Pragyan Pradip Sharma, Sr. Adv. (VC)

Nos. 3 to 5. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Awani Kumar Roy, Adv.

Mr. Arijeet Bera, Adv.

For the respondent : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.

No.5. Mr. Samriddha Sen Adv Heard on : 03.04.2025, 07.04.2025, 08.04.2025, 09.04.2025, 10.04.2025, 22.04.2025, 02.05.2025, 14.05.2025 and 21.05.2025.

Judgment on : 22.09.2025 RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J:

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the disclosure statement dated 29th January, 2025, and the final findings dated 12th February, 2025 passed by the respondent no.2, being the designated authority, within the meaning of 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 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act” and “said Rules”, respectively), on the ground of procedural irregularity, in relation to the non-disclosure of the summary of confidential information in non- confidential form, including but not limited to the non-compliance of the said Rules.

2. Although, the respondent nos. 2 to 5 have questioned the maintainability of the writ petition largely on the ground of presence of alternative remedy in the form of an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the “appellate tribunal” or “appellate authority” or “CESTAT”), however, since, by an affidavit the petitioner contends that the Bench of the appellate tribunal to hear out tariff related cases has not been constituted for more than a year and further the parties on that basis having advanced arguments touching the merits of the matter, this Court has proceeded to hear the matter. On the issue of alternative remedy at the time of moving the petition, the petitioner has affirmed an affidavit stating that although, the appellate authority under Section 9C of the said Act has been provided for however, such appellate authority is of no avail, as the anti dumping Bench of the CESTAT which is empowered to hear the appeals under Section 9C of the said Act has not been constituted for more than one year and is not functional. In support of the aforesaid, the roster of CESTAT from 26th October, 2023 till 28th February, 2025 has been disclosed. Having regard thereto, this Court had continued to hear the challenge and accepted the petition by keeping the issue of maintainability on the ground of alternative remedy alive.

3. The petitioner claims to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is engaged in the business of selling and manufacturing paints used across India for domestic, commercial, industrial and other purposes. According to the petitioner, the total aggregate market share held by the members of the petitioner tantamount to almost 90 per cent of the market share of domestic paint industry in India. The respondent no.2 is the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR), which is the designated authority under the said Act (hereinafter referred to as the “designated authority”). On the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 (in short, the “domestic industry”), the designated authority had initiated an anti- dumping investigation vide a Notification Case No. AD(OI)-03/2024 dated 28th March, 2024 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Complaint”). According to the petitioner, the domestic industry had alleged material injury and thre