C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

Reserved On : 01/07/2026

Pronounced On : 07/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8794 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-

and

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Sd/-

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No

a

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

LANXESS BELGIUM N. V.

Versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MR. MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH TANAY VYAS WITH

SHAREEN GUPTA WITH MRINAL BHATNAGAR for the Petitioner

MR ANKIT SHAH FOR MR PRADIP D BHATE for Respondents No.1-2

MR SAURABH SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH MR. RAJESH

SHARMA WITH GARGI R VYAS WITH SALONI JAIN for Respondent

No.3

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

and

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

CAV JUDGMENT

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

1.In the present writ petition filed under

Article 226 of Constitution of India, the

petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting

aside by questioning the legality and validity,

of the Final Findings dated 20.03.2026, bearing

Case No.AD(OI)-49/2024 and Impugned Notification

No.11/2026-Customs (ADD) dated 19.06.2026.

Page 1 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

BRIEF FACTS :

2.The petitioner is a Company incorporated

under the laws of Belgium and the European Union,

having its registered office at Haven 1992,

Ketenislaan, 9130 Kallo, Belgium. The petitioner

is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of

Sulphenamides Accelerators, which constitute an

essential input in the manufacture of rubber

products.

3.It is the petitioner's case that the

manufacture of the product under consideration is

governed by the manufacturing standards, quality-

control protocols and commercial policies

prescribed by its group company situated in

Europe. Consequently, the product under

consideration exported by the petitioner conforms

to stringent European quality standards,

resulting in a comparatively higher export price

to India than the price at which the

corresponding product is supplied by respondent

No.3.

4.Respondent No.3 filed an application before

respondent No.2 under Rule 5 of the Customs

Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection

of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for

Page 2 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 ("the Anti-

Dumping Rules"), alleging that the product under

consideration was being dumped into India.

5.It is the petitioner's grievance that,

without undertaking the mandatory pre-initiation

scrutiny contemplated under the Anti-Dumping

Rules or satisfying itself as to the accuracy,

adequacy and sufficiency of the information

furnished by respondent No.3, respondent No.2

proceeded to initiate the anti-dumping

investigation solely on the basis of the

application submitted by respondent No.3 by

issuing the Initiation Notification dated

31.12.2024. According to the petitioner, the

initiation of the investigation was thus

undertaken without proper verification of the

factual assertions and supporting material

furnished by respondent No.3.

6.Pursuant to the issuance of the Initiation

Notification, respondent No.2, by Notice dated

10.02.2025, determined the final scope of the

product under consideration by adopting the

Product Control Number (PCN) methodology.

Page 3 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :

7.Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi

submitted that respondent No.2 failed to disclose

the working, computation, methodology and

underlying basis adopted for determining the

exporter-specific dumping margin and injury

margin applicable to the petitioner.

8.While referring to Rule 16 of the Anti-

Dumping Rules, it is submitted that Rule 16 of

the Anti-Dumping Rules mandates respondent No.2

to disclose the essential facts under

consideration before recording the final findings

so as to afford the interested parties a real,

effective and meaningful opportunity to defend

their interests. It is contended that the failure

to disclose the detailed computation and working

of the dumping margin and injury margin deprived

the petitioner of the opportunity to identify and

point out factual, methodological and

computational errors before the issuance of the

final recommendation, thereby vitiating the

entire decision-making process on account of

violation of the principles of natural justice.

9.Learned Senior Advocate referred to the

Landed Value of imports and has contended that it

Page 4 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

is lower for the imports originating from the

People's Republic of China as compared to those

originating from the European Union. It was

contended that, under Rule 11 of the Anti-Dumping

Rules read with Annexure-I and Annexure-II

thereto, the Injury Margin is determined as the

difference between the Non-Injurious Price (NIP)

and the Landed Value of the imported goods,

namely: Injury Margin = Non-Injurious Price

(NIP)-Landed Value. It was submitted that where

the Non-Injurious Price remains constant or is

uniformly determined for the domestic industry, a

lower Landed Value must, as an inevitable

mathematical consequence, result in a higher

Injury Margin, whereas a higher Landed Value must

necessarily result in a correspondingly lower

Injury Margin.

10.Reference is made to the provision of Section

9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short

“the Act”) read with Rule 17(1)(b) of the Anti-

Dumping Rules, and it is submitted that the anti-

dumping duty cannot exceed the margin of dumping

and, in consonance with the lesser duty rule

recognised under the Indian anti-dumping

framework, the duty recommended is ordinarily

Page 5 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

restricted to the lower - (i) the dumping margin,

and (ii) the injury margin. It is submitted that

the impugned final findings are ex-facie contrary

to the statutory framework governing anti-dumping

investigations. Respondent No.2 has failed to

determine the export price in accordance with

Section 9A of the Act read with Clause 5 of

Annexure-I to the Anti-Dumping Rules, thereby

vitiating the determination of the dumping margin

and, consequently, the entire exercise

culminating into the impugned final findings.

11.It was further submitted that Rule 5(3) of

the Anti-Dumping Rules embodies a mandatory

jurisdictional pre-condition requiring respondent

No.2, before initiating an anti-dumping

investigation, to examine the accuracy and

adequacy of the material placed before it so as

to satisfy itself that sufficient prima facie

evidence exists regarding – (i) dumping, (ii)

injury to the domestic industry, and (iii) the

causal nexus between the two. According to the

learned advocate, the failure to undertake such

mandatory scrutiny renders the very initiation of

the investigation without jurisdiction and

vitiates all the consequential proceedings.

Page 6 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

12.Learned advocate for the petitioner placed

reliance on the following judgments of the Apex

Court in the cases of – (i) Reliance Industries

Ltd. vs. Designated Authority , [2006 (9) TMI

180]; (ii) Automotive Tyre Manufacturers

Association vs. Designated Authority , [2011 (1)

TMI 7], wherein it has been held that final

findings issued in violation of the prescribed

statutory methodology and principles of natural

justice are liable to be set aside.

13.According to the learned Senior Advocate for

the petitioner, such an anomalous and

irreconcilable outcome could arise only if there

exists a fundamental error in the computation of

the Landed Value, the determination of the Non-

Injurious Price, the calculation of the Injury

Margin, or the application of the lesser duty

rule. Any such error, it was submitted, strikes

at the very foundation of the impugned

determination and renders the final findings

legally unsustainable.

14.With regard to resorting to the alternative

remedy under Section 9C of the Act, it is

contended that it does not operate as a bar to

the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of

Page 7 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,

particularly when the impugned final findings

have been rendered in flagrant violation of the

principles of natural justice and in complete

disregard to the mandatory procedure prescribed

under the Customs Tariff Act and the Anti-Dumping

Rules. It was submitted that the present case

squarely falls within the well-recognised

exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy as

enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of

Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of

Trademarks, Mumbai & Ors ., (1999) 8 S.C.C. 1, and

reiterated in paragraph No.27 of Radha Krishna

Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , (2021)

6 S.C.C. 771.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS :

15.Opposing the present petition and foregoing

submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Soparkar

appearing for respondent No.3 and learned Senior

Standing Counsel Mr.Ankit Shah, at the outset,

have submitted that the present petition may not

be entertained in view of availability of an

efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner

of filing an appeal under the provisions of

Section 9C of the Act. In support of the

submissions, reliance is placed on the decision

Page 8 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

of the Supreme Court in the case of Nitco Tiles

Ltd. vs. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Manufacturer

Association and Ors., (2005) 12 S.C.C. 454 and in

the case of Designated Authority and others vs.

SanDisk International Limited and Ors ., (2018) 13

S.C.C. 402. They have also submitted that one of

the parties i.e. Automotive Tyre Manufacturers

Association, has already approached the Customs,

Excise and CESTAT Tribunal, New Delhi,

challenging the impugned final findings and the

Notification, and, thus, it is urged that any

observations made by this Court in the present

petition would have direct impact on the

proceedings before the CESTAT, New Delhi.

16.It is contended that the petitioner, by

alleging violation of the principle of natural

justice, has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of

this court under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, whereas in fact, there is no violation

of principle of natural justice as canvassed by

the petitioner. Reference is made to the various

observations made by the competent authority i.e.

respondent No.2 in the impugned findings dated

20.03.2026 as well as the disclosure statement

dated 12.03.2026.

Page 9 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

17.It is contended that the respondents have

only questioned the determination of the anti-

dumping duty and the injury margin by alleging

that the same is not appropriately arrived at

looking to the domestic sales of the industry and

volume of dumped imports. It is submitted that

all these aspects can be considered by the

appellate authorities and it is argued that this

Court may not examine the magnitude of the injury

margin, as determined by respondent No.2, after

the same is determined by appreciating the

submissions advanced by the all the stakeholders,

including the petitioner and the respondents.

ANALYSIS AND OPINION :

18.The issue, which falls for deliberation, is

that whether in the facts of the case, the

petitioner can be relegated to avail the

alternative efficacious remedy of filing an

appeal, under Section 9C of the Act for

challenging the impugned final findings dated

20.03.2026, as well as the Notification No.11/

2026 dated 19.06.2024 issued by respondent No.2

or not.

19.The provisions of Customs 9C of the Act reads

as under :-

Page 10 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

“9C. Appeal.—

1[(1) An appeal against the order of

determination or review thereof shall lie to the

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate

Tribunal constituted under section 129 of the

Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) (hereinafter

referred to as the Appellate Tribunal), in

respect of the existence, degree and effect of—

(i) any subsidy or dumping in relation to import

of any article; or

(ii) import of any article into India in such

increased quantities and under such condition so

as to cause or threatening to cause serious

injury to domestic industry requiring imposition

of safeguard duty in relation to import of that

article.]

[(1A) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be

accompanied by a fee of fifteen thousand rupees.

(1B) Every application made before the Appellate

Tribunal,—

(a) in an appeal under sub-section (1), for

grant of stay or for rectification of mistake or

for any other purpose; or

(b) for restoration of an appeal or an

application, shall be accompanied by a fee of

five hundred rupees.]

(2) Every appeal under this section shall be

filed within ninety days of the date of order

under appeal:

Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may

entertain any appeal after the expiry of the

said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied

that the appellant was prevented by sufficient

cause from filing the appeal in time.

(3) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the

parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being

heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks

fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the

order appealed against.

(4) The provisions of sub-sections (1), (2), (5)

and (6) of section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962

Page 11 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

(52 of 1962) shall apply to the Appellate

Tribunal in the discharge of its functions under

this Act as they apply to it in the discharge of

its functions under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of

1962).

(5) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be

heard by a Special Bench constituted by the

President of the Appellate Tribunal for hearing

such appeals and such Bench shall consist of the

President and not less than two members and

shall include one judicial member and one

technical member.]”

20.Thus, it is not in dispute that the

petitioner is having an alternative efficacious

remedy of filing an appeal, challenging the

impugned final findings before the Customs,

Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

(CESTAT). Upon examination of the provision of

Section 9C of the Act, it is manifest that there

is nothing that prevents the CESTAT from

examining the legality and validity of the

disclosure statement and final findings and the

Notification issued under Section 9A of the Act.

However, we are also conscious of the well-

settled legal precedent that the extraordinary

powers of High Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution cannot be eclipsed or restricted

even if an alternative efficacious remedy is

available to the parties.

Page 12 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

21.The law in this regard is well-settled in the

case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of

Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors ., (1998) 8 S.C.C. 1,

and thereafter followed in series of the

judgements.

22.Thus, it is a settled legal precedent that if

there is gross violation of principles of natural

justice or violation of statutory provisions

governing the process of law, or lack of

jurisdiction, the High Court, while exercising

its extraordinary powers conferred under Article

of the 226 Constitution can always interfere with

such action even if there exists an alternative

efficacious remedy.

23.The petitioner has emphasized on the blatant

violation of principles of natural justice, by

alleging that the mandatory disclosure under Rule

16 of the the Anti-Dumping Rules read with Rules

6, 7, 11 and 17 of the Anti-Dumping Rules are

violated. It is also alleged that the injury

margin determined by respondent no.2 is

mathematically impossible, and respondent no.2

fell in error in determining the injury margin

since there is inconsistency in comparing the

landed value of imports and Non-Injurious Price

Page 13 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

(NIP). The petitioner has attempted to build its

case by comparing the erroneous export price and

landed value, which is contrary to Rule 11 of the

Anti-Dumping Rules. It is contended that the NIP

remains constant across all exporting countries

or is determined on a uniform basis for the

domestic enquiry, lower landed value must

invariably result in a higher injury margin and

conversely, a higher landed value must result in

a lower injury margin. It is alleged that the

valuation adopted by respondent No.2 and the duty

recommended in the statement of impugned findings

are inconsistent since the country of lower

value, landed value, has been recommended a lower

duty, whereas a country with higher landed value

has been recommended higher duty, when

arithmetically it must have a lower injury

margin. Thus, it is alleged that there is

fundamental error, in the computation of landed

value, or in the computation of NIP, or in the

determination of injury margin, or in the

application of lesser duty, which goes to the

root of the determination.

24.Thus, the case of the petitioner is premised

on the recommendation made in final findings,

Page 14 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

determined on an incorrect or faulty

determination.

25.As far as the allegations about adopting an

erroneous and a flawed methodology is concerned,

this Court cannot venture into the determination

or the valuation, adopted by respondent No.2, in

the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports

of sulfenamides accelerators. The disclosure

statement, which is produced on record, reveals

that respondent No.2 has in fact extensively,

considered all the aspects along with the

submissions of all the stakeholders, including

the opposing interested parties. In paragraph

No.38, while taking care of the arguments

advanced by the interested parties relating non-

sharing of the import data, it is recorded that

“the applicant before the authority, has

submitted that it has relied upon market

intelligence to compute the total volume and

value of imports from all countries and the same

has been made available to other interested

parties”. So far as the transaction-wise data is

concerned, which is procured by the authority, is

confidential in nature and is not shared by

Government of India. The same has not been

Page 15 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

disclosed to any interested party, including the

domestic industry. The authority has shared the

information of volume and price of imports which

is relevant under the Anti-Dumping Rules, the

information collected from the Directorate

General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics

(DGCI&S). It is further recorded that the

interested parties have been provided enough of

opportunity to defend their interest on the

information relevant to the investigation and

determination.

26.While referring to Rule 6 (7) and Rule 7 of

the Anti-Dumping Rules, it is also recorded in

paragraph No.39 that the authority has made

available the non-confidential version of the

information provided by various parties to all

other interested parties as per Rule 6(7) of the

Anti-Dumping Rules.

27.In paragraph No.40 of the disclosure

statement, the authority has taken care about the

submissions made by the domestic industry and the

participating exporters concerning

confidentiality, on information such as

production, capacity, capacity utilization,

sales volumes, market share, stocks, selling

Page 16 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

price etc. It is further recorded that wherever

information is for injury period, the same has

been provided on an indexed basis. The authority

has also maintained the business-related

sensitive information, as confidential. After

sharing all the data, as required under the Anti-

Dumping Rules, respondent No.2 has determined the

normal value, export price and dumping margin for

the subject countries as per the Anti-Dumping

Rules, more particularly Rule 9A(1)(c) of the

Anti-Dumping Rules.

28.The normal value and export prices for the

petitioner is also determined, as mentioned in

paragraph No.52 to 61.

29.In paragraph No.63, the dumping margin has

been determined, which has been doubted by the

present petitioner. The designated authority

while assessment of injury and causal link in

paragraph 64 has recorded the submissions of

interested parties, and has accordingly recorded

its findings. The determination of dumping margin

on the extensive scrutiny of data has been shared

among the interested parties. The High Court in a

writ petition, cannot venture into terra

incognita by doubting the methodology/valuation,

Page 17 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

since the same falls within the domain of the

designated authority who is an expert in the

subject. The analysis or scrutiny on the

confidential information is impermissible by the

High Court, in wake of the fact interested

parties have maintained the confidentiality. The

aspect of the procedure adopted by respondent

No.2 and the magnitude of injury margin, as

determined below paragraph No.119 cannot be

delved and examined by this Court, by High Court,

while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

and the appropriate authority would be the

Tribunal.

30.We shall now deal with the alleged breach of

Rules 6, 7, 11 and 17 of the Anti-dumping Rules.

Rule 6 regulates the principles governing

investigation. The petitioner has alleged

violation of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6, which

prescribes that, “ the designated authority may

allow an interested party or its representative

to present the information relevant to the

investigation orally, but such oral information

shall be taken into consideration by the

designated authority .” On scrutiny of the

Page 18 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

disclosure statement, we find that the provisions

of neither Rules 6(6), 7, 11 nor Rule 17 have

been violated. The interested parties, including

the petitioner, have been given sufficient

opportunity of hearing. The disclosure statement

mentions that all the relevant data and

information have been shared with the interested

parties, and if it is the case of the petitioner

that the necessary information has not been

shared, the same can be examined by the Tribunal,

since we do not find that the petitioner has been

exclusively denied the information. Similarly, we

also do not find that there is any violation of

Rule 7 relating to confidential information, as

the designated authority has maintained full

confidentiality and has maintained the

confidentiality of the information on the request

of the interested parties and has followed the

provisions of Rule 7. Likewise, as regards Rule

11, which mentions the determination of injury,

and Rule 17, which stipulates the limitation and

recommendation of amount of duty after recording

the reasons leading to conclusion are concerned,

we find that the petitioner is questioning the

methodology/ valuation adopted by respondent

No.2, in determining the injury which cannot be

Page 19 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

scrutinized by this Court unless it is in gross

violation of Rules or principles of natural

justice.

31.In case the petitioner is deprived of some

information, it is always open to the petitioner

to point out the same before the fact-finding

authority i.e. the Tribunal. The Court cannot, in

the writ petition, delve into such aspects.

32.There is an additional ground which prevents

us from interfering with the Final Findings and

the Notification, i.e. the pendency of an

application before the CESTAT, New Delhi. The

impugned Final Findings dated 20.03.2026 are

challenged by the Automotive Tyre Manufacturers

Association by filing an application being Diary

No. 51523/2026 before the CESTAT. The petitioner

can adopt the same course.

33.Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with

the impugned final findings recorded by

respondent No.2 and the Notification in exercise

of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in

the absence of any gross violation of the

principles of natural justice, any violation of

Page 20 of 21

C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026

the statutory provisions governing the process of

law, or any lack of jurisdiction. Hence, the writ

petition fails and the same is dismissed. The

petitioner may avail of the remedy of filing an

appeal before the CESTAT, challenging the

impugned findings as well as the impugned

Notification.

Sd/- .

(A.S.SUPEHIA, J)

Sd/- .

(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)

***

Bhavesh-[PPS]* - Mahesh-[PS]*

Page 21 of 21