International Trade Quarterly Milestones (January-March 2025)

Partner: Dhruv Gupta, Counsel: Bhargav Mansatta, Consultant: Bhava Sharma

Key Developments

Trade remedy actions on imports into India in the first quarter of 2025

1. Initiation of investigations

   India’s Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) has initiated eleven anti-dumping investigations in the first quarter of 2025 to examine whether duty should be imposed or continued on certain imports. These investigations focus on products such as flexible slabstock polyol, beta naphthol, clear float glass, elastomeric filament yarns, ethylene diamine, metallurgical coke, PX-13 or 6 PPD, viscose rayon filament yarn.

   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.

2. Issuance of recommendations for imposition of trade remedy measures

   The DGTR has recommended definitive anti-dumping/countervailing duties on titanium dioxide, textured tempered glass, vitamin A palmitate, sodium citrate, digital offset printing plates and glufosinate and its salt, among others.

   The implementation of these recommendations is awaited.

3. Imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties

   The Ministry of Finance (MoF) has imposed provisional anti-dumping duty on aluminium foil up to 80 microns, excluding aluminium foil below 5.5 microns for non-capacitor applications.

   The MoF has also imposed definitive anti-dumping duty on trichloro isocyanuric acid, vacuum flasks, soft ferrite core, roller chains, poly vinyl chloride paste resin and acrylic solid surfaces.

Delhi High Court disposes of a batch of anti-dumping appeals as domestic industry withdraws claims

On 26 March 2025, the Delhi High Court disposed of multiple trade remedy petitions after domestic producers voluntarily withdrew their claims for anti-dumping duties (ADD) to be imposed. The petitions contested the central government’s decision not to impose or continue ADD despite recommendations from the Designated Authority (i.e., the DGTR) in several investigations to do so.

The cases involved various goods, including styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), high tenacity polyester yarn, phenol, optical yarn, and radial tyres. In each instance, the DGTR had recommended the imposition of ADD, but the government declined to implement these recommendations through Office Memoranda (OM), prompting legal challenges.

The domestic industry first challenged the OMs before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which set aside the OMs and remanded the matters to the government. CESTAT also directed interim provisional assessments of imports based on the ADD recommended by the DGTR. The government appealed to the Delhi High Court, arguing that CESTAT lacked the jurisdiction to review legislative action.

However, at this stage, the domestic industry informed the High Court that it no longer wished to pursue ADD enforcement. This was done by formally withdrawing claims either by writing to the government or stating in Court that they were no longer pressing for duties to be imposed. As a result, the Court held that the petitions had become infructuous. The direction of provisional assessments allowed through CESTAT and/or the interim order of the High Court was vacated, and fresh directions were issued to finalise customs assessments and release any bonds executed during litigation.

Delhi High Court provides limited leniency on treatment of exporter responses in anti-dumping investigations

The DGTR had initiated an anti-dumping investigation on imports of plastic processing machines from China and Taiwan. When exporters submitted the Exporter Questionnaire Responses shortly after the deadline, the DGTR rejected the submissions as time-barred, prompting the petitioners to approach the Delhi High Court. The Court condoned the minor delay and directed the DGTR to accept the responses and proceed in accordance with the law.

Subsequently, the DGTR issued a disclosure statement acknowledging the petitioners’ participation in the investigation but flagging several deficiencies in the data submitted, such as submission in PDF instead of the required Excel format. The DGTR proposed not assigning individual dumping margins due to inadequate data in its disclosure statement. The petitioners challenged the relevant portion of the disclosure statement before the Delhi High Court in another writ petition, contending that the DGTR had failed to properly verify their submissions.

The Court observed that while writ petitions at the stage of disclosure statements are not automatically non-maintainable, judicial restraint must be exercised. It noted that anti-dumping investigations follow strict timelines and must not be disrupted without a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court accordingly declined to interfere with the disclosure statement but allowed the petitioners to resubmit the same data in Excel format (with no additional information) and file objections and clarifications by 21 March 2025 – extending the deadline by one day.

This ruling suggests that the High Court’s observation may extend limited leniency to exporters involved in trade remedy matters, but exporters should respond within timelines and follow prescribed formats. While judicial review remains available, courts are unlikely to interfere midway unless there is compelling evidence of arbitrariness or procedural unfairness.

Delhi High Court rules transitional clause under Foreign Trade Policy inapplicable to safeguard restrictions imposed under Foreign Trade Act

The Delhi High Court has clarified that transitional relief provisions under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 (FTP), do not apply to quantitative restrictions imposed following a safeguard investigation under Section 9A of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act). The Court rejected petitions from importers of low ash metallurgical coke who had sought relief under Para 1.05(b) of the FTP after their applications for registration of Irrevocable Commercial Letters of Credit were rejected by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade.

The central question before the Court was whether the transitional arrangement clause under Para 1.05(b) of the FTP, which protects imports under pre-existing commercial commitments from sudden restrictions or prohibitions, applied to restrictions imposed pursuant to a safeguard investigation under Section 9A. The Court held that it did not apply.

The Court noted that while Para 1.05(b) may apply to restrictions under Section 3 of the FTDR Act (policy shifts in the public interest), Section 9A is fundamentally different. Introduced in 2010, Section 9A is a special provision addressing serious injury or threat to domestic industry from increased imports. It involves detailed investigation, stakeholder participation, and a reasoned recommendation from the DGTR. The procedural and evidentiary rigour built into Section 9A and the accompanying Safeguard Measures (Quantitative Restrictions) Rules, 2012, make it a standalone mechanism distinct from the general policy-making power under Section 3.

The Court concluded that Clause 1.05(b) of the FTP was framed in the context of changes under Sections 3 and 5 of the Act and was inapplicable to import restrictions under Section 9A.

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.