Infringements Allegedly Occurred in Delhi, Not WB: Calcutta HC Dismisses Kuwait Based Company’s Challenge to DGTR ADD Findings [Read Order]

The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Kuwait based company challenging the final findings of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) recommending imposition of anti-dumping duty (ADD) on imports of Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG) from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Singapore.

Justice Om Narayan Rai held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, as no part of the cause of action arose within West Bengal, and the alleged infringements, if any, occurred outside the State.

“The lis before this Court, as already indicated hereinabove, is only with regard to the violation of the petitioner’s right to fair treatment and fair adjudication based on the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not with regard to the petitioner’s apprehension of loss of business in West Bengal. In such view of the matter, the petitioner’s apprehension cannot form the basis of the present writ petition in West Bengal” said the court.

Where GST law, rates and exemptions finally meet—without page-hopping. Click here

The petition challenged the DGTR’s final findings dated September 23, 2025, issued under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995, which recommended ADD based on an investigation initiated on an application by the Chemicals and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Association of India.

The petitioner, Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C., a Kuwait-incorporated exporter, alleged serious procedural lapses by the Designated Authority, including non-disclosure of essential facts, arbitrary determination of dumping margins, and violation of principles of natural justice.

At the threshold, the Union of India and the DGTR raised preliminary objections on maintainability, arguing that the Calcutta High Court had no territorial jurisdiction since the DGTR is headquartered in Delhi, the investigation and communications took place there, and the final findings were merely recommendatory in nature. It was further contended that any statutory challenge to the findings lay before the appellate forum, CESTAT, under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act.

The petitioner sought to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction on the ground that the proposed ADD would adversely affect its business with customers in Kolkata, particularly through imports routed via Haldia Port, thereby causing commercial injury within West Bengal.

The petitioner claimed that the downstream effects of the DGTR's proposal constituted a portion of the State's cause of action, noting previous dealings with a Kolkata-based company.

The Court drew a clear distinction between “cause of action” and mere “consequential injury.” The judge held that an apprehended adverse effect on business in West Bengal does not amount to a legally relevant part of the cause of action for challenging the DGTR’s findings.

The Court observed that the gravamen of the challenge related to the conduct of the anti-dumping investigation, alleged non-supply of essential facts, and the methodology adopted by the DGTR, all of which occurred outside West Bengal.

The place where the exporter’s goods might eventually be imported, or where its customers might be located, was held to be irrelevant for jurisdictional purposes. An apprehension of future commercial loss, the Court said, cannot substitute for a legally sustainable cause of action.

The bench, without entering into the merits of the allegations on natural justice, disclosure of data, or dumping margin calculations, dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates