In this update:
Partner: Dhruv Gupta, Counsel: Bhargav Mansatta, Associate: Bhava Sharma
The Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) has initiated 13 anti-dumping investigations in the second quarter of 2025 to examine whether anti-dumping duty needs to be imposed or continued on certain imports into India. These investigations focus on products, including virgin multi-layer paperboard, thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) based surface/paint protection film¸ fluoroelastomer, para-tertiary butyl phenol, para-nitrotoluene, methyl acetoacetate, faced glass wool in rolls, and linear low-density polyethylene.
The government has also initiated a mid-term review investigation to re-evaluate and enhance the anti-dumping duty levied against imports of jute products from Bangladesh and Nepal. A countervailing duty investigation on imports of textured tempered coated and uncoated glass originating in or exported from Malaysia is also underway.
The governments of exporting countries, exporters, and importers of these products in India are expected to actively respond to these investigations to avoid or minimise the impact of trade remedy measures on their businesses.
The DGTR has recommended definitive anti-dumping/countervailing duties on thiram, continuous cast copper wires, black toner powder, and aniline, among others.
The implementation of these recommendations is awaited.
The Ministry of Finance has imposed definitive anti-dumping duty on glufosinate and its salt, acetonitrile, insoluble sulphur, sodium citrate, potassium tertiary butoxide and sodium tertiary butoxide, linear alkyl benzene, vitamin-A palmitate, aluminium foil up to 80 micron, textured tempered coated and uncoated glass, pretilachlor in any form and its intermediate, 2,6-diethyl-n-(2-n-propoxyethyl) aniline, plastic processing machinery or injection moulding machines, and titanium dioxide.
On 13 June 2025, the Bombay High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging show cause notices issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Customs Act). These notices alleged misdeclaration of the regional value content of tin ingot imports from Malaysia. The petitioners argued that customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to determine origin-related disputes, claiming that the dispute should first go through the specialised inter-governmental dispute resolution mechanism outlined in Article 24 of the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement (AIFTA).
The Court rejected this argument, ruling that as Article 24 of AIFTA had not been incorporated into domestic law, it was not justiciable in Indian courts. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Agricas LLP,1 the High Court reiterated the distinction between “direct application” of treaty provisions and their “act of transformation” into municipal law. It held that in the absence of legislation or rules transforming Article 24 into municipal law, the customs authorities retained full jurisdiction under the Customs Act.
This decision is in line with the Gujarat High Court’s ruling in Trafigura India Pvt. Ltd. It confirms that treaty-based procedural protections cannot be invoked to override the powers of domestic enforcement agencies unless they are statutorily codified. The Court found no merit in the petitioners’ claim that the show cause notices were ultra vires for not complying with Article 24 of AIFTA. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, allowing the customs adjudication process to move forward.
The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) has extended country-wise quantitative restrictions (QR) on Low Ash Metallurgical Coke (LAM Coke) imports for six months, from 1 July to 31 December 2025. This decision continues the restrictions first put in place in December 2024.
Importers of LAM Coke must apply for authorisation through the DGFT online portal by 13 July 2025. Each importer may submit a maximum of three applications, with each application limited to one supplier country. The requested quantity must cover the entire restriction period (1 July to 31 December 2025). A Special Exim Facilitation Committee will review these applications and determine quantity allocations. Importers will need to report utilisation by the end of Q1 (September 2025), and allocations may be adjusted based on these reports. Modalities for transferring unused or residual quota between countries are yet to be clarified.
The QR measures reinforce the government’s intent to monitor and regulate critical raw material imports, potentially as a safeguard against global price volatility and to protect domestic coke producers. Industry stakeholders should keep a close watch on the ongoing anti-dumping investigations into LAM Coke imports, which could lead to the imposition of anti-dumping duty soon.
On 6 May 2025, India and the United Kingdom (UK) concluded negotiations on a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), following ministerial-level discussions in London. The announcement was made jointly by the Prime Ministers of both countries. The official text was signed on 24 July 2025 and will enter into force after ratification by the respective Parliaments. This marks India’s third major trade agreement in recent years under its renewed bilateral trade engagement strategy, following agreements with the United Arab Emirates and Australia.
The key features of the CETA are:
Chapter 3 of the CETA focuses on rules of origin and introduces a comprehensive framework for determining the origin of goods. It outlines the criteria to assess whether goods containing non-originating materials qualify as originating in India or the UK. Only goods that satisfy the product-specific rules of origin will be eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the CETA.
Annexure 3A of Chapter 3 details the product-specific rules of origin using the 2022 Edition of the Harmonised System. It provides a chapter, heading, and subheading-wise breakdown. For example, goods falling under Chapter 26 (ores, slag, and ash) must meet the change in tariff subheading criteria and standard qualifying value content (QVC) to qualify for preferential duty rates. Similarly, goods falling under Chapter 60 (knitted or crocheted fabrics) must satisfy the change in tariff heading criteria and standard QVC.
Annexure 3D of Chapter 3 introduces a first-of-its-kind authentication process for verifying origin declarations, which form the basis of a claim for preferential tariff treatment. This process includes digital submissions of origin declarations and real-time database checks by the customs authorities. However, this process alone will not constitute a claim for preferential tariff treatment. A separate claim process must still be followed.
For businesses looking to avail of reduced tariffs under the CETA, accurately determining and documenting the origin of their goods is not merely a formality but a compliance requirement. Proper adherence to the framework will be critical to leveraging the benefits of this trade agreement while avoiding legal and regulatory pitfalls.
[1] Union of India v Agricas LLP, 2020 (373) E.L.T. 752 (SC)
If you require any further information about the material contained in this newsletter, please get in touch with your Trilegal relationship partner or send an email to alerts@trilegal.com. The contents of this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only and are not in the nature of a legal opinion. Readers are encouraged to seek legal counsel prior to acting upon any of the information provided herein.
If you would like to receive content directly in your inbox from our knowledge repository, please complete this subscription form. This service is reserved for clients and eligible contacts.
Under the rules of the Bar Council of India, Trilegal is prohibited from soliciting work or advertising in any form or manner. By accessing this website, www.trilegal.com, you acknowledge that:
We prioritize your privacy. Before proceeding, we encourage you to read our privacy policy, which outlines the below, and terms of use to understand how we handle your data:
For more information, please read our terms of use and our privacy policy.