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Your email address will not be published.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
SC Upholds Customs Exemption on Imported Arms for Shooting Events

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

November 5, 2025

CBIC Designates Authorised Officer for Food Imports at Kannur Airport

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

November 5, 2025

CBIC Issues Guidelines for Revision of Customs Entries Post-Clearance u/s 18A

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

November 3, 2025

Govt. Empowers Officers Under Customs Voluntary Revision Rules 2025

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

November 1, 2025

Govt. Revises Anti-Dumping Duty on Imports of Untreated Fumed Silica from China and Korea

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

October 29, 2025

CBIC Consolidates Customs Exemption Notifications Into Single Framework

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

October 28, 2025

CBIC Aligns Customs Exemption Notifications With Consolidated Framework

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

October 27, 2025

Order Set Aside as Successor Officer Passed Order Without Hearing | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

October 24, 2025

Telephonic Recall of Cleared Goods Without SCN Is Unlawful | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

October 18, 2025

SC Clears Vantara of Animal Smuggling and Laundering Allegations

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

October 16, 2025