- within Antitrust/Competition Law topic(s)
Shri Narayan and Co. & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Decision dated 26th February 2026
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition by an importer challenging the seizure of its 'Designer and Decorative Stainless-Steel Coils for Wall Panelling' at ICD Dadri. Physical examination by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ('DRI') revealed the goods were actually 'Flat-Rolled Stainless Steel Coils,' misclassified under CTH 7326 instead of CTH 7219. As CTH 72193520 requires a mandatory BIS licence under the Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control Order), 2024, in absence of such licence, the authorities deemed the consignment prohibited and seized it under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The importer argued the goods were not prohibited, citing clearance of similar items under CTH 73269060 at other ports and an interim order in Pradeep Industries granting provisional release. The importer pressed for a similar relief, pending adjudication.
Before proceeding the matter on merits, a preliminary objection was raised with respect to the maintainability of the petition on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. In response, the importer argued that they invoked the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as the importer operates its business in Delhi as well as most of the Respondents including Ministry of Finance, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and the DRI, have headquarters in Delhi.
The Hon'ble High Court declined to examine the merits of the dispute and dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court was of the prima facie view that ICD Dadri, does not fall within its territorial jurisdiction. While relying upon Meever India20 judgment, the Court ruled that the conduct of business by the importer in Delhi or mere location of the head offices of the Respondent in Delhi is insufficient to confer jurisdiction, unless any part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits. The Court permitted the importers to withdraw its petition with liberty to approach the appropriate High Court upon dismissal.
Gujarat Fluorochemicals Limited v. Union Of India & Ors.
Interim decision dated 26th February 2026
In a petition filed by the domestic industry, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court on 26th February 2026, extended the anti-dumping duty until the next date of hearing, that is, 5th March 2026. This decision came after the Hon'ble Court was apprised about the inactions of the Central Government which had not communicated its decision within 90 days pursuant to the recommendation of DGTR for continuation of anti-dumping duties in the SSR. The existing duties was set to expire on 26th February 2026.
The domestic industry argued that even after lapse of three months, it had no knowledge of the decision taken by the Central Government on the final imposition of duty, despite positive recommendation for continuation of duty by the DGTR. It sought an extension of existing duties, noting settled law that if an existing anti-dumping duty is not extended prior to its expiry, the same cannot be extended at a later stage. In response, the Union of India contended that a decision not to impose the duty had been taken within the period of 90 days from the date of the Final Findings as prescribed in Rule 18 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. He further emphasized that the Government is not obligated to communicate its decision for not accepting the recommendations of the DGTR.
To balance the equity and as an interim relief, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, at the request of the domestic industry, extended the existing anti-dumping duty till the next date of hearing. The Court observed that such interim protection was necessary to ensure that the levy remains alive during the pendency of the proceedings and subject to the outcome of the petition, the duty collected could be refunded. The Court further noted that the issue concerning communication of the decision of the Central Government would be examined on next date of hearing.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
