International Trade Quarterly Milestones (July-September 2025)

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently examined whether the amendments proposed by Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 intended to limit its jurisdiction in anti-dumping duty appeals had come into force. These amendments modify Sections 9, 9A, and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (Customs Act), to restrict CESTAT’s appellate power to review only the recommendations and final findings of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR). Its power to amend, modify or set aside the customs notifications issued by the MoF, pursuant to the DGTR’s recommendation, was expressly removed.

The core question before the CESTAT was whether Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 had come into effect or whether a specific notification by the central government was required to bring it into force. In its order dated 26 August 2025, the CESTAT held that the amendments require to be specifically notified by the central government to become operative. As no such notification had been issued, the amendments had not taken effect. Accordingly, CESTAT concluded that appeals against customs notifications issued by the MoF remain maintainable under the unamended provisions of the Customs Act.

However, on 22 September 2025, the Delhi High Court granted an interim stay on the CESTAT’s order. The Court noted that the issue requires judicial scrutiny due to its significant implications on appellate powers and ongoing litigation. The case is next listed for hearing on 24 November 2025. In the meantime, CESTAT has postponed hearings in all anti-dumping appeals to January 2026.

The Calcutta High Court has quashed the final findings of the DGTR and the consequent anti-dumping duty notification on titanium dioxide from China, citing significant procedural irregularities and violation of the principles of natural justice.

The central question before the Court was whether the DGTR could rely on confidential information submitted by the domestic industry to reject a product exclusion request without providing interested parties, like the petitioner, with a non-confidential summary of that information. The domestic industry claimed that it manufactured and sold a specific grade of the product under consideration, a fact that the petitioner contested. The petitioner argued that the absence of a verifiable summary of this crucial data prevented it from effectively defending its interests.

The High Court held that the procedure adopted by the DGTR was contrary to Rule 7 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995, and Article 6.9 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Court reiterated that when a party claims confidentiality, it must provide a non-confidential summary of the information. If the DGTR is not satisfied with the confidentiality claim or if the party is unwilling to furnish a summary, the authority must disregard such information. By relying on the domestic industry’s unsubstantiated confidential claims without ensuring disclosure of a summary, the DGTR failed to provide the petitioner with the essential facts underpinning its decision, thus vitiating the final findings.

The Court also dismissed preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition. It ruled that the petition could be entertained despite an alternative statutory remedy, as the relevant anti-dumping bench of the CESTAT had been non-functional for over a year. The matter has been remanded to the DGTR for fresh consideration in compliance with procedural laws.

On 6 August 2025, the United States (US) imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian imports through Executive Order 14329, citing India’s continued purchase of Russian oil. This brings the applicable tariff to 50%. Certain product categories, such as semiconductors, mobile phones, and pharmaceuticals, have been exempted from the entire 50% tariff.

Under the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), tariffs apply only to goods crossing borders. They are, in essence, customs duties on physical products. The trade in services is governed by a separate framework, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), which focuses on market access, national treatment, and regulatory transparency rather than imposing border taxes. Therefore, the new tariffs will apply only to tangible goods, such as gems and jewellery, textiles, and petroleum products, and not to service exports, including IT outsourcing, software development, and business consulting.

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has introduced the Customs (Finalisation of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2025, pursuant to the amendments to Section 18 of the Customs Act made by the Finance Act, 2025.

The regulations apply to all provisional assessments, both pending and newly initiated, and provide clarity on documentation requirements, timelines for assessment finalisation and related procedural aspects. By laying down clear parameters, these regulations are expected to ease compliance burden for importers and exporters and reduce delays in finalising assessments.

Customs Authorities across India have initiated an industry-wide investigation into the import of copper tubes and pipes from Vietnam, where importers have claimed preferential duty benefits under the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA). The investigation stems from a suspicion that Vietnamese suppliers may be using copper cathodes sourced from non-ASEAN countries in their manufacturing process, thereby failing to meet the Regional Value Content (RVC) criteria under the AIFTA Rules of Origin. This would make them ineligible for the claimed duty exemptions.

Pursuant to this investigation, show cause notices have been issued to multiple importers alleging non-compliance and seeking recovery of differential duties, interest, and penalties.

Recent developments in the Rajasthan and Delhi High Courts suggest that judicial scrutiny may offer interim relief to affected businesses. Notably, in M/s Krn Heat Exchangers and Refrigeration Limited and Ors. v Union of India,² the Rajasthan High Court, on 26 August 2025, admitted a batch of petitions challenging the show cause notices and granted interim protection by restraining the authorities from proceeding further until 31 October 2025.