Court Declines to Entertain Writ Against Anti-Dumping Duty Recommendations by DGRT
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Equate Petrochemical Company K.S.C.C., challenging the Final Findings of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGRT) concerning the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Mono Ethylene Glycol imports from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore. The court, presided over by Justice Om Narayan Rai, held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition as no part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits.
The court examined the petitioner's claims, which primarily centered around alleged violations of principles of natural justice and arbitrariness by the DGRT. Equate Petrochemical contended that the DGRT's findings were based on incomplete data, neglecting information from other domestic producers besides Reliance Industries Limited. Furthermore, the company argued that its business operations in Kolkata would suffer due to the imposition of the anti-dumping duty, which would deter potential customers.
Despite these claims, the court emphasized that mere apprehension of business loss within the territory does not establish a cause of action. Justice Rai referenced precedent judgments, highlighting that for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution, the cause of action must arise wholly or in part within the court's territorial jurisdiction. The court noted that the facts alleged by Equate Petrochemical did not constitute a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action relevant to the dispute.
The decision also pointed out that Equate Petrochemical had alternative remedies available, such as approaching the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). However, since the court dismissed the petition on jurisdictional grounds, it did not delve into the merits of the arguments regarding the principles of natural justice or the alleged arbitrariness of the DGRT's process.
This ruling underscores the importance of establishing a clear territorial connection for jurisdictional purposes in writ petitions, especially when challenging actions of national authorities. It also reiterates the judicial principle that apprehensions or potential business impacts, without concrete jurisdictional links, are insufficient to invoke the writ jurisdiction of a High Court.
Bottom Line:
Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India - High Court's jurisdiction must be based on facts constituting a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. Mere apprehension of business loss within a territory does not establish territorial jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 Section 9C
