A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India addresses the limits of judicial review over anti-dumping investigations conducted by the Designated Authority under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. The dispute arose from repeated writ petitions filed by M/s. Andhra Petrochemicals Limited challenging the refusal of the Designated Authority to impose anti-dumping duty on imports of certain alcohols from Saudi Arabia and other countries. The High Court not only interfered with the investigation process but also initiated contempt proceedings and directed replacement of the Designated Authority.

The Supreme Court examined whether such judicial intervention was permissible during an ongoing quasi-judicial investigation. The Court held that anti-dumping investigations are time-bound, evidence-intensive, and governed by international obligations under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. It emphasized that insistence on contemporaneous data by the Designated Authority was neither arbitrary nor mala fide but a statutory necessity. The High Court’s orders were found to be an impermissible continuous oversight over statutory discretion. The judgment reinforces institutional autonomy of trade remedy authorities and restricts excessive judicial interference except in exceptional circumstances.

Keywords:
Anti-dumping duty; Judicial review; Designated Authority; Contemporaneous data; WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The litigation originated from an application filed by the respondent domestic manufacturer seeking imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports of Normal Butanol from Saudi Arabia. The Designated Authority initiated investigation but eventually terminated it on the ground that dumping occurred only during the last three months of the investigation period, rendering injury analysis inconclusive. The respondent challenged this decision repeatedly before the High Court, leading to multiple remand orders.

Despite the statutory scheme envisaging a limited and technical inquiry by the Designated Authority, the High Court progressively expanded its supervisory role. It directed fresh investigations, questioned procedural decisions, initiated suo motu contempt proceedings, and ultimately ordered replacement of the Designated Authority. These actions raised serious concerns regarding separation of powers and judicial overreach in trade remedy investigations.

The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 by substituting its views for that of a statutory authority exercising specialized quasi-judicial functions. The judgment situates anti-dumping law within India’s international commitments under the WTO framework and clarifies the standard of judicial restraint applicable to such matters .

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The respondent filed an application in 2016 alleging dumping of Butanol from Saudi Arabia. Investigation was initiated with the period of investigation spanning April 2015 to March 2016. Imports from Saudi Arabia occurred only between January and March 2016. The respondent claimed these imports captured nearly 39% market share and caused material injury.

After hearings and disclosure of essential facts, the Designated Authority terminated the investigation under Rule 14(b), citing insufficiency of data to establish injury or causal link. The respondent filed writ petitions challenging the decision. The High Court allowed the first writ and directed reconsideration. Upon reconsideration, the Designated Authority again declined initiation, leading to further writ proceedings.

The High Court not only set aside the refusal but directed initiation of investigation into other alcohols and later took exception to the Authority seeking updated data. It initiated contempt proceedings and directed replacement of the incumbent Designated Authority. These orders were challenged before the Supreme Court .

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the High Court could direct initiation and scope of an anti-dumping investigation?
ii. Whether insistence on contemporaneous data by the Designated Authority was arbitrary?
iii. Whether judicial review can extend to continuous supervision of an ongoing investigation?
iv. Whether directing replacement of the Designated Authority was legally sustainable?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants submitted that the Designated Authority acted strictly within the statutory framework. It was argued that Rule 5(3) and Para 5.9 of the Manual of Operations mandate reliance on recent data. Without updated information, any investigation would be legally infirm and inconsistent with WTO obligations. The High Court’s interference was characterized as excessive and destructive of institutional independence.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent contended that the Designated Authority deliberately avoided compliance with judicial directions. It was argued that 2-EH manufactured by the respondent was a “like article” to imported INA and 2-PH under Rule 2(d). The refusal to accept this equivalence and insistence on fresh data were portrayed as mala fide and contemptuous.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 9A, Customs Tariff Act, 1975
ii. Rules 2(b), 2(d), 5, 14, 17 & 20 of Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995
iii. Article 5.10 & Article 10 of WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court held that anti-dumping investigations are specialized, time-bound, and evidence-driven. The insistence on contemporaneous data was justified to ensure meaningful levy within statutory timelines. Investigations based on stale data would lead to ineffective remedies.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Kumho Petrochemicals and reiterated that WTO obligations require strict adherence to investigation timelines. Judicial review should not become an instrument of micro-management. The High Court’s contempt proceedings and directive to replace the Designated Authority were found wholly unsustainable.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

Judicial review under Article 226 must respect statutory autonomy of trade remedy authorities. Courts cannot act as continuous supervisors of ongoing investigations. Procedural decisions taken in compliance with statutory rules and international obligations cannot be branded as mala fide.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that directing substitution of statutory authorities undermines administrative stability and erodes confidence in institutional processes. Such directions should be avoided except in cases of proven bias or illegality.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Anti-dumping investigations must rely on recent and relevant data.
ii. Courts should intervene only after final findings, barring exceptional circumstances.
iii. Statutory discretion of Designated Authority must be respected.
iv. Contempt jurisdiction must not be used to compel administrative outcomes.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

i. S&S Enterprise v. Designated Authority, [2005] 2 SCR 255
ii. Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority, [2006] 6 Supp SCR 1
iii. Union of India v. Kumho Petrochemicals, [2017] 4 SCR 324
iv. Directorate General of Anti-Dumping v. Sandik International, (2018) 13 SCC 402

b) Important Statutes Referred

i. Customs Tariff Act, 1975
ii. Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Rules, 1995
iii. WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement