Minor Delay No Ground to Exclude Petitioners in Anti-Dumping Probe | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

Anti-Dumping Probe
Case Details: Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. Versus Union of India (2025) 29 Centax 352 (Del.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Prathiba M. Singh & Dharmesh Sharma, JJ.
  • S/Shri Gopal Jain, Senior Adv. with Vikram Naik, Ms Suverna Kashyap & Udajan Choksi, Advs., for the Petitioner.
  • Ms Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC with S/Shri Govind Sharma, Ms Ishika Gupta, Rajesh Sharma & Nikhil Sharma, Advs., for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioners, who are exporters and importers of plastic processing machines originating from China and Taiwan, were involved in an anti-dumping investigation initiated by the Department of Trade Remedies. As part of the investigation, the petitioners were required to submit their responses to a questionnaire issued by the authorities. The petitioners, however, submitted their response 19 minutes after the prescribed deadline. Despite this brief delay, the petitioners had been permitted to participate in public hearings related to the investigation. Subsequently, the petitioners received an email from the Department of Trade Remedies, informing them that their response was considered time-barred and rejected due to the delay in submission. In light of this, the petitioners filed a petition before the Delhi High Court.

High Court Held

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the petitioners’ response should not be excluded based solely on the minor 19-minute delay in submitting their questionnaire response. The Court found that the petitioners had already been permitted to participate fully in the proceedings, and in the context of anti-dumping investigations, which require comprehensive and inclusive examination, such a brief delay should not prevent their response from being heard. The Court further emphasised that procedural flexibility should be exercised, especially when the delay is minor, as it does not undermine the integrity of the investigation. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioners’ response to the questionnaire be taken on record, and the delay in filing it was condoned.

List of Notifications Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
Govt Revises Tariff Values for Edible Oils | Gold | Silver and More

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

February 1, 2026

No Export Duty on Iron Ore Fines Below 58% Fe | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 31, 2026

NDPS Case | SC Allows Interim Release of Foreign Vessel

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 30, 2026

Government Revises Tariff Values For Edible Oils, Gold And Silver

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 29, 2026

Gold Smuggling Via Diplomatic Cargo Leads To Licence Revocation | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 28, 2026

Commercial Frying System Classifiable Under HSN 8438 | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 24, 2026

Namkeen Frying System Classifiable Under HSN 8438 | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 23, 2026

Customs Can’t Alter FOB Or Recompute Drawback | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 22, 2026

CBL Regulations Breach, Licence Revocation Set Aside, Penalty Upheld

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 21, 2026

CBIC Grants One-Time QCO Exemption For Cross Recessed Screws

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 20, 2026