<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2025 (4) TMI 1580 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769666</link>
    <description>A marginal delay of 19 minutes in filing a questionnaire response in an anti-dumping investigation was condoned because the response was submitted only shortly after the prescribed time, the petitioner had already been allowed to participate, and the inquiry had to remain comprehensive. The court treated exclusion of the response for such a brief delay as disproportionate where it would prevent full participation in the investigation. The response was therefore taken on record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2025 12:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=818274" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 1580 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769666</link>
      <description>A marginal delay of 19 minutes in filing a questionnaire response in an anti-dumping investigation was condoned because the response was submitted only shortly after the prescribed time, the petitioner had already been allowed to participate, and the inquiry had to remain comprehensive. The court treated exclusion of the response for such a brief delay as disproportionate where it would prevent full participation in the investigation. The response was therefore taken on record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769666</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>