Deekshitha Sharmile

The High Court of Calcutta, Single Bench of Justice Om Narayan Rai dismissed a writ petition by a Kuwait-incorporated company challenging trade remedies findings, holding that a stated fear of losing business in West Bengal does not, by itself, confer territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner alleged unfair treatment in the investigation leading to final findings recommending anti-dumping duty on imports of Mono Ethylene Glycol from certain countries and contended that the recommendation would deter customers in Kolkata. The Court held that territorial jurisdiction must rest on facts integral to the dispute, and that a cause of action arises from infringement of a legal right. Since the dispute involved an alleged denial of fair procedure under Article 14, the petitioner’s apprehended commercial impact in West Bengal could not justify filing the writ petition there.

The petitioner, a company incorporated under the laws of Kuwait, challenged the final findings issued by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies on September 23, 2025. These findings recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Mono Ethylene Glycol originating from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore. The investigation was initiated on the basis of an application filed by the Chemicals and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Association of India, with injury data provided by Reliance Industries Limited.

Also Read: Urban Land (Ceiling And Regulation) Act | Section 10(5) Notice To Person In Actual Physical Possession Mandatory Before Taking Over Land: Supreme Court

The petitioner participated in the investigation by submitting questionnaire responses, cost and sales verification data, and attending oral hearings. It objected to the disclosure statement issued under Rule 16 of the 1995 Rules, alleging that the Designated Authority relied on undisclosed information and methodologies inconsistent with the petitioner’s verified data. The petitioner claimed that dumping margins were arbitrarily raised to 40–50% despite its submissions showing negative margins.

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability, arguing that the Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before CESTAT under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. They further contended that the petitioner, being an exporter, was not directly aggrieved, and that the Designated Authority had acted within the framework of the Rules.

Justice Om Narayan Rai recorded: “The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court on the unfounded assumption that part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court since levying of anti-dumping duties… would in effect disincentivize the petitioner’s actual and potential customers located in Kolkata.” The Court stated: “Mere adverse effect on the petitioner’s business within the territorial jurisdiction of West Bengal would not give rise to any cause of action in the facts of the present case.”

It observed: “What is required for this Court to exercise jurisdiction in terms of Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India is arising of cause of action or part thereof within the territory of West Bengal and not causation of injury within the territory of West Bengal.” The Court recorded: “The Final Findings are just in nature of recommendation of the Designated Authority to the Government of India. The Government of India may or may not accept the Final Findings. The Final Findings per se did not give rise to any cause of action.”

It further stated: “Imposition of anti-dumping duty, if any, would be on the importer and not on the petitioner, and in such view of the matter, the petitioner could not be said to have any cause of action or to be a person aggrieved.” The Court observed: “The petitioner had a complete remedy on facts and law before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and there was no reason for this Court to intervene at the stage of issuance of Final Findings.”

Also Read: RBI Can Permit Non-Repatriable Share Allotment To NRI Against Second-Hand Capital Goods Imports Under FERA Sections 19(1)(D), 29(1)(B); Calcutta HC

On natural justice, the Court recorded: “Since the petitioner had not cooperated with the Designated Authority by supplying the information sought for, the Designated Authority was left with no option but to proceed on the basis of the information already available.” It stated: “The Final Findings of the Designated Authority were in the nature of a best judgment assessment which is permitted by Rule 6(8) of the Rules.”

Justice Om Narayan Rai directed: “This Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the writ petition. For all the reasons aforesaid this Court is unable to entertain the present writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Since this Court is not entertaining the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the arguments pertaining to availability of alternative remedy, violation of principles of natural justice and other points raised by the parties and the judgments cited in support thereof are not being dealt with. The writ petition is dismissed.”         

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rishi Raju, Adv., Ms. Shreya Mundra, Adv., Mr. Sarthak Yadav, Adv., Mr. Rohan Aloor, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Asoke Kumar Chakraborty, Ld. ASGI, Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, Sr. Adv., Mr. Dibashis Basu, Adv., Mr. Arun Bandyopadhyay, Adv., Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Adv., Mr. V. V. V. Sastry, Adv., Mr. Anirudh Goyal, Adv., Mr. Utkarsh Srivastava, Adv., Ms. Shilpa Balani, Adv., Mr. Vishal Agarwal, Adv., Ms. T. Sinha, Adv.

Case Title: Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C. Vs. Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGRT) & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:CHC-AS:2295
Case Number: WPA 26130 of 2025
Bench: Justice Om Narayan Rai