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Your email address will not be published.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
CBIC Notification 33/2025 Customs Tariff Values—Effective May 1, 2025

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

May 2, 2025

Customs Duty Exemption Withdrawal – Notification 26/2025

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

May 2, 2025

SC Upholds CTH 6813 89 00 Friction Materials Classification

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

May 1, 2025

CBIC Updates Bank List for Duty-Free Import of Gold and Silver for FY 2025–26

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

April 30, 2025

HC Upholds Rejection of Drawback Claim Due to Unexplained Delay by Exporter

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

April 29, 2025

India Recognises Nepal’s NFFRL for Food Testing Under FSSAI Regulations

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

April 28, 2025

CBIC Designates Rohini Yard Jetty, Raigad as Customs Port in Maharashtra

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

April 28, 2025

Govt. Imposes 12% Provisional Safeguard Duty on Steel Flat Product Imports

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

April 28, 2025

SC Sets Aside Conviction Due to Procedural Lapses Under NDPS Act

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

April 28, 2025

Assessment of Iron Ore for Determining Fe Content for Export Duty Is to Be Made on a Wet Metric Ton (WMT) Basis | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

April 16, 2025