IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2546 of 2026 ==========================================================

M/S GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMICALS LIMITED & ANR.

Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR RAJESH SHARMA, MS SALONI JAIN & MS GARGI R VYAS(7983) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR ANKIT SHAH and for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 26/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. Notice returnable on 05.03.2026. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Shah waives service of notice for and on behalf of the respondents.

2. The matter is taken up on urgent basis as levy of Anti-dumping Duty extended under Notification dated 19.08.2025 issued by the Ministry of Finance, which was to remain in force upto and inclusive of 26.02.2026 will lapse unless the same is extended.

3. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties at this stage with regard to the extension of the time limit as specified in the Notification dated 19.08.2025,since it will live its life till

26.02.2026. It is not in dispute that the similar matters with analogous issue are kept on

05.03.2026.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Joshi appearing for the petitioners has submitted that vide final finding order dated 29.10.2025 in Sunset Review the competent authority has recommended the imposition of Anti-dumping Duties in favour of the Domestic Industries. However, it appears that such recommendations are pending before the Finance Ministry.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel, upon instructions, at this stage has submitted that decision not to accept the recommendation in favour of the domestic industries is taken before expiry of 90 days, as prescribed under Rule 18 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 however, he is not aware about the exact date of the decision. While referring to the same Rule i.e. Rule 18, he has submitted that the respondent authorities are not under an obligation either to disclose the reason or to issue any notification in case the recommendations are not accepted.

6. Thus, as on date, it is not in dispute that that there has been recommendation in favour of the Domestic Industries, which has been recommended to the Finance Ministry. It is orally conveyed to this Court that the recommendations are not accepted, however, date of such decision is not yet known either to this Court or to the petitioners.

7. Under the circumstances, in view of the peculiar facts, at this stage, in absence of any order/decisions or reasons for refusing to accept the recommendation of the final findings of the Sunset Review investigation, we do not accede to the request made by learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Shah for not to extend the levy of Anti-dumping Duty.

8. Hence, we direct that Anti-dumping Duty shall be continued to be levied till the next date of hearing. We clarify that the same will be subject to further orders passed by this Court and in case, the petitioners fail, Anti-dumping Duty can always be refunded by the authorities.

9. By the next date of hearing, if the pleadings are over, the Court will take the matter for hearing for final disposal. The question of communicating of any decision/notification refusing the recommendation of levy of anti- dumping duty will be considered and decided on the next date of hearing.

Sd/- .

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

Sd/- .

(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J)

NVMEWADA/24