TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereafter "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 antidumping 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s raised by the Designated 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 2025, decided on September 22, 2025], passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, was cited for the proposition that the Final Findings of the Designated Authority are assailable before CESTAT in terms of Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 9. Mr. Salve, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 4 also elaborated on the objection as regards territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present writ petition. It was submitted by Mr. Salve that the petitioner who had approached this Court is a foreign company incorporated under the laws of State of Kuwait. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 petitioner had refused to provide copy of each Feedstock Supply agreement with KPC to substantiate its claimed purchase price on the ground of confidentiality. It was submitted that since the petitioner had not cooperated with the Designated Authority by supplying the information sought for by the Designated Authority, the Designated Authority was left with no option but to proceed on the basis of the information already available with the Designated Authority. It was submitted by Mr. Salve that 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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 reiterated the points urged by Mr. Basu on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Salve on behalf of the respondent no. 4. He additionally submitted that since the petitioner is a foreign entity the protection of Article 14 of the Constitution of India may not be available to the petitioner. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa vs. Summit Online Trade Solutions Private Limited & Ors. [(2023) 7 SCC 791] and submitted that determination of the question as to whether the facts pleaded in the writ petition constituted a part of cause of action for attracting Article 226 of the Constitution of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter 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. Raju 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 Findings of the Designated Authority can very well be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that availability of alternative remedy before CESTAT would not be a good ground to repel the petitioner's request to entertain the writ petition. 25. Mr. Raju then set forth to demonstrate that in the case at hand there was total violation of principles of natural justice and Rule 16 of the said Rules. It was submitted that since the Designated Authority had acted arbitrarily in not providing the essential facts, which the Designated Authority was obliged to provide in terms of Rule 16 of the said Rules, the existence of appellat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion pertaining to dumping margin at paragraph G.3.2 of the disclosure statement, it was submitted by Mr. Raju 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 0% to 10% as against a negative dumping margin arrived at by the petitioner. 28. It was further submitted by Mr. Raju that the petitioner did not shy away from furnishing any information that was sought for by the Designated Authority. Referring to a communication dated July 17, 2025 it was submitted that the petitioner had brought it to the notice of the Designated Authority that all details had already been placed on record along with sample invoice as part of the petitioner's previous verification files submitted on June 6, 2025 and that the same were also include in the format of Appendix - 10. 29. That all the clarification and information that was sought for by the respondent Designated Authority was supplied to the said authority however request was made to veri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 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 dispute or at least an integral part thereof must have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was submitted that since in the case at hand the situation is not so, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction. 36. Mr. Salve, stressed that the Final Findings of the designated authority could not be impeached by the petitioner on the ground of non-disclosure of alleged material when the petitioner had not supplied information sought for by the said authority. In order to buttress his contention that the designated authority is justified in resorting to best judgment assessment, he relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as 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 of the Court. 43. Relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2007) 4 SCC 54] it was contended that principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum and that the same are not required to be complied with compliance therewith will lead to an empty formality on such proposition. 44. Another judgment in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association vs. Designated Authority & Ors. [(2011) 2 SCC 258] was relied on to demonstrate that Courts intervene in matters like the one at hand only when the Designated Authority has proceeded without affording any opportunity of hearing to the affected persons. 45. Mr. Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent no. 3 reiterated his earlier submissions and submitted that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that any part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Relying on the judgment of Rik....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entertain a writ petition, the Court must be satisfied on the basis of the averments made in the petition that the cause of action therefor has either wholly or in part arisen within its territorial jurisdiction. Oil And Natural Gas Commission (supra) was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adani Exports Ltd. (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court ultimately held as follows:- "15. Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India which speaks of the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court reads: "226. (2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories." 16. It is clear from the above constitutional provision that a High Court can exercise the jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. This provision in the Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... then we see that none of the facts pleaded in para 16 of the petition, in our opinion, falls into the category of bundle of facts which would constitute a cause of action giving rise to a dispute which could confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts at Ahmedabad." 53. It will be evident from the above that firstly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that satisfaction as regards arising of cause of action (whether in full or in part) within the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court must be derived by the High Court on the basis of the averments/pleadings in the writ petition. Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that every fact pleaded in the writ petition would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that such fact gave rise to a cause of action unless such fact has nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. 54. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed the same proposition once again in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. (supra) in the following words:- "18. The facts pleaded in the writ petition must have a nexus on the basis whereof a prayer can be granted. Those facts which have nothing to do with the prayer made therein cannot ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te and that; at least, a part of the cause of action to move the High Court arose within its jurisdiction. Such pleaded facts must have a nexus with the subject-matter of challenge based on which the prayer can be granted. Those facts which are not relevant or germane for grant of the prayer would not give rise to a cause of action conferring jurisdiction on the court. These are the guiding tests." 56. The petitioner's case is therefore required to be examined in the light of the guiding principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 57. The pointed question which is to be answered is - whether in the in the light of the facts pleaded in the present case, the petitioner's apprehension that its business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court might be hampered if a notification is issued based on the impugned recommendation of the Designated Authority would constitute a part of cause of action? 58. The pleadings in the writ petition need to be noticed first. 59. Paragraph 1 of the writ petition introduces the petitioner to the Court. Paragraph 2 contains introductory statements as regards the respondent nos. 1 and 2. It may be noted that the respondent nos.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity in rendering the Final Findings. The challenge thereto is essentially based on the four-fold grounds of violation of Rule 16 of the said Rules (which also corresponds to violation of principles of natural justice), arbitrariness, non-application of mind and perversity. Indeed, as many as thirty-eight grounds have been taken in the writ petition to prop the challenge to the Final Findings of the Designated Authority, but they essentially criticise the Final Findings on the same four counts, albeit in a different and more expansive tone. 63. It is the petitioner's case that essential facts which would include workings, calculations 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 u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the petitioner's right to fair procedure and treatment has taken place in Delhi beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court therefore this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 68. Since the lis before this Court, as already indicated hereinabove, is only with regard to the violation of the petitioner's right to fair treatment and fair adjudication based on the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not with regard to any infringement of right in West Bengal, therefore, the present writ petition cannot be maintained here. Since this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adi Saiva Sivachariyargal Nala Sangam (supra) cannot come to the aid of the petitioner. 69. Mr. Raju relied on the judgment of the Eastern India Edible Oil Manufacturers Association (supra) wherein it has been held that upon goods illegally cleared by the customs authority in Bihar entering into zone of the business of the petitioner before the Court of West Bengal, cause of action arose in favour of the petitioner before this Court within West Bengal. The said judg....