Gujarat High Court Dismisses LANXESS Belgium's Writ Against Anti-Dumping Duty, Holds CESTAT Proper Forum

The Gujarat High Court on 7 July held that disputes concerning the methodology used by the Designated Authority to determine dumping and injury margins in anti-dumping proceedings must be raised before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), and not through a writ petition unless exceptional circumstances exist.

A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Supehia and Vaibhavi D. Nanavati dismissed the writ petition filed by Belgian exporter LANXESS Belgium N.V. challenging the Designated Authority's final findings dated 20 March 2026 and the consequential notification imposing anti-dumping duty. The judges observed:

“The High Court, in a writ petition, cannot venture into terra incognita by doubting the methodology/valuation, since the same falls within the domain of the designated authority who is an expert in the subject.”

LANXESS Belgium challenged the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of Sulphenamides Accelerators. It argued that the Designated Authority did not disclose the computation and methodology used to determine exporter-specific dumping and injury margins.

The petitioner-company contended that the authority violated the Anti-Dumping Rules and principles of natural justice by denying it an effective opportunity to challenge the calculations before issuing the final findings. It argued that the injury margin calculation was mathematically incorrect because a lower landed value should result in a higher injury margin where the non-injurious price remains unchanged.

Further, it submitted that the recommendations showed the opposite result, indicating errors in the calculation of landed value, injury margin or the application of the lesser duty rule. It also argued that the Designated Authority failed to conduct the mandatory examination required before initiating the anti-dumping investigation.

The Union of India and the domestic industry opposed the writ petition, arguing that LANXESS Belgium had an effective statutory remedy before the CESTAT under the Customs Tariff Act. They submitted that the disclosure statement showed that the Designated Authority had provided adequate opportunity to all interested parties and that the petitioner's challenge involved technical issues within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The High Court accepted the respondents' submissions and held that the disclosure statement showed that the Designated Authority had considered the submissions of stakeholders and shared the required non-confidential information under the Anti-Dumping Rules. It noted that confidentiality was maintained only for protected commercial information.

The Bench held that the High Court could not examine disputes relating to valuation, injury margin or the methodology adopted by the Designated Authority in writ jurisdiction. It further observed:

“We do not find that the petitioner has been exclusively denied the information. The petitioner is questioning the methodology/valuation adopted by respondent No.2 in determining the injury, which cannot be scrutinized by this Court unless it is in gross violation of Rules or principles of natural justice.”

Moreover, the Bench noted that the Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association had already challenged the same final findings before the CESTAT and held that LANXESS Belgium could also pursue the statutory appellate remedy.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition after finding no violation of natural justice, statutory provisions or jurisdictional error, while granting liberty to LANXESS Belgium to approach the CESTAT.

For Petitioner: Mr. Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate, with Tanay Vyas, Shareen Gupta and Mrinal Bhatnagar.

For Respondents: Mr. Ankit Shah for Mr. Pradip D. Bhate; Mr. Saurabh Soparkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Gargi R. Vyas and Saloni Jain