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Your email address will not be published.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 Clarifies CESTAT Did Not Uphold Finding Against Customs Broker

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 17, 2025

Customs Finalisation of Provisional Assessment Regulations 2025 – CBIC Notification 55/2025

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

September 16, 2025

HC Backs Preferential Treatment For Startups And MSMEs

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 15, 2025

HC Orders Release Of Detained Personal Gold Jewellery

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 15, 2025

Provisional Release of Seized Roasted Areca Nuts Allowed | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Battery Operated AMR Water Meters Classifiable Under 9026 10 10 | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 12, 2025

Polyester Bed Sheets Classified Under Heading 6304: CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 10, 2025

Appeal Maintainable in HC if Issue is Breach of Duty Exemption Condition | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 9, 2025

Gold Bars to Be Released to Bank on Provisional Basis | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 8, 2025

Metal-Core PCBs Classifiable as Printed Circuits Under CTH 8534 | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

September 6, 2025