Gujarat High Court on Anti-Dumping Valuation Challenges: Writ vs Appeal under Section 9C
Background of the Dispute
Lanxess Belgium N. V., a Belgium-based manufacturer of Sulphenamides Accelerators, approached the Gujarat High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The assessee sought to invalidate:
- Final Findings dated 20.03.2026 in Case No.
AD(OI)-49/2024, and - Notification No. 11/2026-Customs (ADD) dated 19.06.2026 imposing anti-dumping duty.
The assessee produces Sulphenamides Accelerators, a key raw material for rubber product manufacturing, at European facilities adhering to strict quality parameters. It asserted that owing to these higher standards, its export prices to India are higher than those of respondent No. 3, an Indian domestic producer who had triggered the anti-dumping proceedings.
The anti-dumping investigation commenced when respondent No. 3 filed an application under Rule 5 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (the Anti-Dumping Rules), alleging dumping of the subject goods into India.
Pursuant to this application:
- The Designated Authority issued an Initiation Notification dated 31.12.2024.
- Later, by Notice dated 10.02.2025, the Authority finalised the scope of the product under consideration using the Product Control Number (PCN) methodology.
The core challenge before the High Court related to the validity of this process and whether the assessee could bypass the appellate route under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and directly invoke the writ jurisdiction.
Assessee’s Submissions
Alleged Non-Disclosure of Methodology and Working
The assessee, through learned Senior Counsel, argued that the Designated Authority did not share the detailed computation, working, or rationale for determining:
- Exporter-specific dumping margin, and
- Injury margin applicable to the assessee.
Referring to Rule 16 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, it was contended that:
- The Authority is obliged to disclose the “essential facts under consideration” prior to recording final findings.
- Such disclosure must be adequate to allow interested parties to make effective representations.
The assessee maintained that non-disclosure of detailed calculations and methodology prevented it from detecting factual or computational errors before finalisation of the findings, thereby breaching principles of natural justice.
Mathematical Inconsistency in Injury Margin
The assessee highlighted an alleged anomaly based on the formula for Injury Margin under Rule 11 read with Annexures I and II of the Anti-Dumping Rules:
Injury Margin = Non-Injurious Price (NIP) – Landed Value
Key assertions were:
- Landed value of imports from the People’s Republic of China was stated to be lower than that of imports from the European Union.
- If the Non-Injurious Price (NIP) is held constant or uniformly determined for the domestic industry, logic and arithmetic dictate that:
- A lower landed value should yield a higher injury margin, and
- A higher landed value should yield a lower injury margin.
According to the assessee, the impugned findings exhibited the opposite outcome — lower landed value from one country allegedly translated into a lower duty, and higher landed value into a higher duty — which, in its view, was mathematically impossible unless there was:
- Error in landed value computation, or
- Incorrect NIP determination, or
- Faulty injury margin calculation, or
- Misapplication of the lesser duty rule.
Misapplication of Section 9A and Lesser Duty Rule
The assessee further invoked Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Rule 17(1)(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules, arguing:
- Anti-dumping duty cannot exceed the margin of dumping.
- Under the lesser duty rule, the recommended duty should be confined to the lower of:
- Dumping margin, and
- Injury margin.
It was alleged that:
- The Designated Authority did not compute the export price in accordance with
Section 9Aread with Clause 5 of Annexure-I, - This vitiated the dumping margin determination, and consequently,
- The entire final finding and recommendation process stood compromised.
Jurisdictional Defect in Initiation under Rule 5(3)
The assessee attacked the very foundation of the investigation by relying on Rule 5(3) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. It was argued that: