AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1492
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reafter "the said Rules) framed thereunder. 2. The impugned Final Findings reveal that the same have been rendered by the Designated Authority upon conducting an investigation based on an application filed before it by the Chemicals and Petrochemicals Manufacturers Association of India (i.e. the respondent no. 3 herein) requesting for initiation of an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Mono Ethylene Glycol (hereafter the "subject goods") originating in or exported from the State of Kuwait, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Singapore. It further reveals that the data pertaining to injury information was provided by Reliance Industries Limited (the respondent no. 4 herein). FACTS OF THE CASE:- 3. A brief factual foundation of the writ petition may first be noticed:- a. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of Kuwait. It is aggrieved by the Final Findings rendered by the Designated Authority whereby the Designated Authority has recommended imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of subject goods from the subject countries which includes Kuwait. b. The petitioner asserts that the impugned determina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Authority. g. The petition indicates that a second oral hearing was also conducted by the Designated Authority on June 04, 2025 since the incumbent in the seat of the Designated Authority had changed and that the petitioner duly participated in the said hearing as well. Thereafter upon being called upon by the Designated Authority, the petitioner submitted additional clarification/information/data. h. Thereafter the Designated Authority issued the disclosure statement under Rule 16 of the said Rules on September 10, 2025. i. The petitioner registered its objection thereto by contending that that disclosure statement was based on such undisclosed information/workings relied upon by the Designated Authority that was at variance with the data provided by the petitioner and verified by the Designated Authority. j. The petitioner, therefore, made a written request dated September 10, 2025 to the Designated Authority to provide the actual cost of production of the petitioner as determined by the said authority; the methodology adopted for calculating such costs of production and the changes made to the workings submitted by the petitioner. k.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial customers located in Kolkata from engaging in business with the petitioner thereby hampering the petitioner's ability to conduct business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court". It was indicated that in support of its aforesaid contention the petitioner has sought to rely on its business data with one entity named IVL Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Limited. 7. Reliance was placed in a judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Adani Exports Ltd. & Anr. (2002) 1 SCC 567 cited on behalf of the respondent no. 1 in support of the contention that 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. In support of the contention that this Court should not exercise jurisdiction since no part cause of action has arisen within the territory of West Bengal, reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil And Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 711. 8. A judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Essilorluxottica Asia Pacific PTE Ltd. & Ors. W.P.(C) 14723 of 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin the territorial jurisdiction of this Court would be required to be proved. 12. It was further submitted that the petitioner is an exporter and not an importer and that the petitioner would be able to export only if somebody is ready to import in India. In such view of the matter, the petitioner's assertion that the petitioner's business would be hampered is mere imagination of injury and not a real apprehension. 13. It was further submitted that 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. 14. Mr. Salve next submitted that in any event, the petitioner had a complete remedy on facts and law before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (i.e. CESTAT) and that there was no reason for this Court to intervene at the stage of issuance of Final Findings. 15. In order to demonstrate that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice, Mr. Salve invited the attention of this Court to paragraphs 159 and 160 of the Final Findings and sought to demonstrate that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de opportunity to the domestic industries to furnish information which is relevant to the investigation such mandate is not there insofar as interested parties are concerned. Relying on Rule 6(8) of the said Rules, it was submitted that where an interested party refuses or does not provide necessary information within a reasonable period, the Designated Authority would be justified in recording its findings on the basis of the facts available to him. The Court was taken to the various paragraphs in the writ petition in a bid to demonstrate that of canon of natural justice have been duly complied with. 19. Mr. Salve also placed Rules 4, 5, 7, 11 and 16 of the said Rules and submitted that the Designated Authority has acted within the four corners of the said Rules and has rendered the Final Findings strictly in accordance with law upon affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard and after supplying all the essential facts. Mr. Salve further submitted that there was no jurisdictional error that could persuade this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction in the facts of the present case. 20. Mr. Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3 reiterate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quired to await actual prejudice and adverse effect and consequence. In order to institute a writ proceeding and that an apprehension of harm can very well furnish a cause of action for moving the Court. 23. Mr. Khaitan, relied on a Coordinate Bench judgment of the Court in the case of Eastern India Edible Oil Manufacturers' Association & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. 2004 SCC OnLine Cal 325 in support of his contention that if the petitioner suffers injury within the zone of the petitioner's business the same would give rise to a cause of action. It was submitted that in the case at hand if anti-dumping duty is imposed on the importer the import may not import the goods of the petitioner because of the imposition of duty and that would then injure the petitioner's business within West Bengal. It was submitted, such apprehension gave rise to a cause of action within the territory of West Bengal and as such this Court should entertain the writ petition. 24. Mr. Khaitan then relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Designated Authority & Ors. vs. Sandisk International Limited & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 402 in support of his contention that Final Findin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er and verified by the Designated Authority was negative the same has been astronomically raised to 40% to 50% in the disclosure statement made by the Designated Authority. It was submitted that methodology for arriving at such anti-dumping such dumping margin of 50% was never supplied to the petitioner by the Designated Authority. Referring to the observation made by the Designated Authority in paragraph 159 of the impugned Final Finding, Mr. Khaitan referred to the petitioner's response dated June 06, 2025 and submitted that the petitioner had provided the detailed price mechanism for ethylene purchase made by the petitioner. 27. Referring to the section pertaining to dumping margin at paragraph G.3.2 of the disclosure statement, it was submitted by Mr. Khaitan that although a dumping margin table has been provided by the Designated Authority under the said section, the same would reveal that there is no criticism of anything that was submitted by the petitioner and there is no disclosure of any material or data that was used to arrive at the dumping margin of 40% to 50% as against a negative dumping margin arrived at by the petitioner. 28. It was further submitted by Mr. K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Rules is in the nature of necessary information and should be disclosed to the respective parties to enable them to comment on the same. 33. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Industries Limited vs. Designated Authority & Ors. (2006) 10 SCC 368 was relied on to contend that proceeding before the Designated Authority is to determine the lis between the domestic industry on the one hand and the importer violation comes from the supplier of the other and in such cases Designated Authority took supply of relevant information to the person to whom such information relates. REJOINDER BY THE RESPONDENTS:- 34. Mr. Salve, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 re-joined by submitting that the case of the petitioner lay in the zone of speculation. He reiterated that since the petitioner is an exporter its exports would land at a place where a buyer chooses to get them. In such view of the matter the petitioner's exports may or may not land within the territory of West Bengal. 35. He placed the judgment in the case of Adani Exports Ltd. (supra) and submitted that for this Court to entertain the instant petition the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficacious alternative remedy before CESTAT. In support of such submission, a judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Expanded Polymer Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Trade Remedies, Department of Commerce and Industry, Government of India & Ors. 2021 (1) TMI 1305 was relied on. 42. It was then submitted that the writ petition was itself pre-mature inasmuch as no notification accepting the Final Findings and imposing anti-dumping duty had yet been issued. 43. This Court was taken through the various paragraphs of the writ petition to demonstrate that no part of cause of action could be said to have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of pleadings made in the writ petition. A judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Essar Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Ltd. vs. The District Magistrate, Shahdara (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. MAT 112 of 2024, decided on May 24, 2024 was relied on for the proposition that Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India can be invoked only when material, essential or integral part of cause of action arise within the territorial jurisdiction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t was used to bring on record document to show consistent business transaction with IVL Dhunseri within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. 51. He distinguished the judgments cited by the respondents and submitted that the same were rendered in the peculiar facts of the case and were not applicable to the case at hand. ANALYSIS AND DECISION:- 52. Of the two principal preliminary objections raised by the respondents, the one concerning territorial jurisdiction requires prior consideration. It is only if this Court rules on its territorial jurisdiction affirmatively that it would be required to debate and determine as to whether or not discretion should be exercised to entertain the writ petition notwithstanding availability of alternative statutory remedy. 53. Before analysing the case at hand for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition or not, the guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which need to be applied while undertaking such ascertainment may be noticed. 54. In the case of Oil And Natural Gas Commission (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in order t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. Thus the question of territorial jurisdiction must be decided on the facts pleaded in the petition, the truth or otherwise of the averments made in the petition being immaterial." 17. It is seen from the above that in order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application as in this case, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear from the above judgment that each and every fact pleaded by the respondents in their application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the court's territorial jurisdiction unless those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the court concerned. If we apply this pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ord Brett in Cooke v. Gill [Cooke v. Gill, (1873) LR 8 CP 107] that "cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court", has been accepted by this Court in a couple of decisions. It is axiomatic that without a cause, there cannot be any action. However, in the context of a writ petition, what would constitute such "cause of action" is the material facts which are imperative for the writ petitioner to plead and prove to obtain relief as claimed. 17. Determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded constitute a part of the cause of action, sufficient to attract clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution, would necessarily involve an exercise by the High Court to ascertain that the facts, as pleaded, constitute a material, essential or integral part of the cause of action. In so determining, it is the substance of the matter that is relevant. It, therefore, follows that the party invoking the writ jurisdiction has to disclose that the integral facts pleaded in support of the cause of action do constitute a cause empowering the High Court to decide th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e found in paragraph 41 of the writ petition. The same are as follows:- "41. Your Petitioner states this Hon'ble Court has held that a cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of a Court where an impugned order is implemented. Your Petitioner highlights that bona fide customers of MEG located in Kolkata procure your Petitioner's exports via Haldia port. Indeed, in FY 2021-2022, 19,526 MT of Your Petitioner's exports of MEG were purchased by IVL Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Limited, a customer in Kolkata. However, the imposition of anti-dumping duties would require such customers to pay a significant additional duty of $102/MT for a period of 5 years upon imposition at Haldia port, a duty that is not payable for domestic procedures of MEG. In essence, the effect of Respondent No. 1's recommendation are to disincentivize your Petitioner's actual and potential customers located in Kolkata from engaging in business with your Petitioner, thereby hampering your Petitioner's ability to conduct business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Indeed, IVL Dhunseri Petrochem Industries Private Limited has also challenged the Impugned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions and methodology used by the Designated Authority in determining the dumping margin have not been supplied to the petitioner. It has also been alleged that the Designated Authority has conducted a highly selective injury analysis that lacks comprehensive engagement with the points raised by the petitioner and other interested parties during investigation. It has been asserted that the Designated Authority has acted arbitrarily by disregarding the petitioner's costs and relying on its own costs without furnishing the basis, material and information used therefor. 66. On the basis of such pleadings the petitioner has principally prayed for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to recall and rescind the impugned final findings. 67. In order to get the desired relief, the petitioner would have to prove only those facts and grounds based on which the Final Findings have been assailed by the petitioner. For example, in the case at hand the petitioner will have to prove that the workings, calculations etc., which have allegedly not been supplied to it by the Designated Authority, constitute essential facts and non-supply thereof is violative of the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on that at all. In fact paragraph 18 of Adani Exports Ltd. (supra) points out to an exactly similar situation. The same is extracted hereinbelow: 18. As we have noticed earlier, the fact that the respondents are carrying on the business of export and import or that they are receiving the export and import orders at Ahmedabad or that their documents and payments for exports and imports are sent/made at Ahmedabad, has no connection whatsoever with the dispute that is involved in the applications. Similarly, the fact that the credit of duty claimed in respect of exports that were made from Chennai were handled by the respondents from Ahmedabad have also no connection whatsoever with the actions of the appellants impugned in the application. The non-granting and denial of credit in the passbook having an ultimate effect, if any, on the business of the respondents at Ahmedabad would not also, in our opinion, give rise to any such cause of action to a court at Ahmedabad to adjudicate on the actions complained against the appellants. (Emphasis supplied) 70. The present case would not even require the aforesaid examination to be undertaken inasmuch as here the petitioner has ....