https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783952 The dominant issue was whether the HC had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ challenging the Designated Authority's final findings recommending anti-dumping duty, on grounds of breach of natural justice and arbitrariness under Article 14. Applying SC principles, the HC held it must derive jurisdiction solely from pleaded facts constituting an integral part of the cause of action, i.e., facts essential to establishing the asserted right and its infringement. Alleged adverse impact on business or commercial engagements within the State lacked nexus with the asserted procedural illegality and was not indispensable to the challenge; deleting such pleadings would not affect the claim. Consequently, the HC declined to entertain the writ for want of territorial jurisdiction and dismissed it. en-us Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:18:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783952 The dominant issue was whether the HC had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ challenging the Designated Authority's final findings recommending anti-dumping duty, on grounds of breach of natural justice and arbitrariness under Article 14. Applying SC principles, the HC held it must derive jurisdiction solely from pleaded facts constituting an integral part of the cause of action, i.e., facts essential to establishing the asserted right and its infringement. Alleged adverse impact on business or commercial engagements within the State lacked nexus with the asserted procedural illegality and was not indispensable to the challenge; deleting such pleadings would not affect the claim. Consequently, the HC declined to entertain the writ for want of territorial jurisdiction and dismissed it. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 22 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783952