$~84 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17819/2025 ALL-INDIA GLASS MFRS FEDERATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Kartik Nayar, Mr. Krish Kulra, Mr. Divyansh Rai, Ms. Manjira Das Gupta, Mr. Prabhav Bahuguna, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Pallavi Talwar, GP, Adv for R-1/UOI.

Mr. Abhishek Gupta CGSC, Mr.

Kumar Kartikeya, Adv.

Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Mathur, Ms. Niyati Kohli, Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Mr. Pratham Vir Agarwal, Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Mr. Jatin Kumar, Advs. for R-4.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR

O R D E R

% 24.11.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 73588-89/2025 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 17819/2025& CM APPL. 73587/2025

3. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Final Findings in Case No. AD (OI)-29/2024 dated 29th September, 2025 issued by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (hereinafter, ‘DGTR’).

4. Thebriefbackgroundofthepresentcaseisthatanapplicationwasfiled in the form of a complaint by the domestic industry i.e., Respondent No.4- Alkali Manufacturers’ Association of India, seeking imposition of Anti Dumping Duty (hereinafter, ‘ADD’) on the import of ‘Soda Ash’. The said application is titled as ‘Application for Anti Dumping Investigation concerning imports of Soda Ash from USA, Russia, Turkey and Iran/UAE’.

5. Public notice of the said complaint was issued on 30^th September, 2025 vide public notice bearing F. No. 06/31/2024-DGTR and the Anti Dumping Investigation was initiated. All the concerned parties were informed and comments were filed by the Petitioner and its various members. A Minimum Import Price (hereinafter, ‘MIP’) was imposed on 30^th December, 2024 vide Notification No. 46/2024-25. The hearing was conducted by the concerned Authority under the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment, and CollectionofAnti-DumpingDuty onDumpedArticles andforDetermination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter, ‘the Rules’) and the impugned final findings were issued on 29^th September, 2025.

6. The Petitioner which is an association of Glass Manufacturers which also imports soda ash has filed the present petition challenging the said final findings.

7. At the outset, Mr Jayant Mehta, ld. Sr. Counsel for Respondent No. 4 and Mr Abhishek Gupta, ld. CGSC for Union of India, challenge the maintainability of the present petition. Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the final findings of the Designated Authority are yet to be either accepted or rejected by the Central Government, hence, the present writ petition is premature.

8. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, raises the following three submissions:

i. IntermsoftheamendmenttoRule5(3A)oftheRules,thePeriod ofInvestigation(hereinafter,‘POI’)istonormallybe12months, however, if the same is to be curtailed, reasons have to be recorded in writing. In the present case, the POI was only 9 months.

ii. All the other investigations which have been conducted during the relevant period were for a period of 12 months and there is no reason given as to why the same is 9 months for the present case. A list of various other investigations are placed on record to show that the POI is normally twelve months.

iii. The POI has been deliberately restricted to October, 2023 to June, 2024, though, the complainant has asked for a POI of six months and usually it should have been twelve months. According to the ld. Sr Counsel, the curtailment of the period from October, 2023 is with an intention to show the low prices whereas just before October, 2023, the average import price was Rs. 27,524/-. Thereafter, it came down to Rs. 25,107/- , Rs. 23,640/- and dropped even less. This has adversely affected the investigation.

9. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, ld. Sr. Counsel thus submits that the