High Court of Gujarat
LANXESS BELGIUM N. V.versusUNION OF INDIA
- Disposal
- 26-DISMISSED @ ADM.STAGE
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no gross violation of statutory procedure or natural justice occurred and that the petitioner must pursue the appeal before the CESTAT under Section 9C.
Summary
Lanxess Belgium N.V., a Belgian manufacturer of sulfenamide accelerators, challenged the anti-dumping final findings and notification issued by the Designated Authority (Respondent No.2) on the ground that the investigation was initiated without the mandatory pre‑initiation scrutiny and that the computation of dumping and injury margins violated Rules 5, 6, 7, 11, 16 and 17 of the Anti‑Dumping Rules as well as principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the authority failed to disclose the methodology for calculating the dumping margin and injury margin, leading to a mathematically impossible duty recommendation. The respondents contended that an efficacious alternative remedy exists under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and that the matter was already before the CESTAT, so the High Court should not interfere. The Court examined whether the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 can be invoked despite the availability of the alternative remedy and whether any gross violation of statutory procedure or natural justice occurred. Finding that the authority had complied with the procedural requirements, provided sufficient opportunity of hearing, and that any alleged errors could be addressed before the CESTAT, the Court held there was no jurisdictional defect or gross injustice. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the appeal before the CESTAT.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner must first avail the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
- Whether the anti‑dumping investigation and the final findings violated the mandatory procedural requirements of the Anti‑Dumping Rules, particularly Rules 5, 6, 7, 11, 16 and 17.
- Whether there was a gross violation of principles of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction that would justify the High Court’s interference despite the existence of an alternative remedy.
Legislation cited
- Customs Act, 1962s. 129
- Customs Tariff Act, 1975s. 9A(1), s. 9C
Subjects
anti‑dumpingnatural justiceArticle 226Customs Tariff ActSection 9Cdumping margininjury marginalternative remedyCESTATprocedural fairness
Judgment
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
Reserved On : 01/07/2026
Pronounced On : 07/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8794 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI Sd/-
=========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
a
=========================================================
LANXESS BELGIUM N. V.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
=========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MIHIR JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH TANAY VYAS WITH
SHAREEN GUPTA WITH MRINAL BHATNAGAR for the Petitioner
MR ANKIT SHAH FOR MR PRADIP D BHATE for Respondents No.1-2
MR SAURABH SOPARKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, WITH MR. RAJESH
SHARMA WITH GARGI R VYAS WITH SALONI JAIN for Respondent
No.3
=========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. In the present writ petition filed under
Article 226 of Constitution of India, the
petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting
aside by questioning the legality and validity,
of the Final Findings dated 20.03.2026, bearing
Case No.AD(OI)-49/2024 and Impugned Notification
No.11/2026-Customs (ADD) dated 19.06.2026.
Page 1 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
BRIEF FACTS :
2. The petitioner is a Company incorporated
under the laws of Belgium and the European Union,
having its registered office at Haven 1992,
Ketenislaan, 9130 Kallo, Belgium. The petitioner
is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of
Sulphenamides Accelerators, which constitute an
essential input in the manufacture of rubber
products.
3. It is the petitioner's case that the
manufacture of the product under consideration is
governed by the manufacturing standards, quality-
control protocols and commercial policies
prescribed by its group company situated in
Europe. Consequently, the product under
consideration exported by the petitioner conforms
to stringent European quality standards,
resulting in a comparatively higher export price
to India than the price at which the
corresponding product is supplied by respondent
No.3.
4. Respondent No.3 filed an application before
respondent No.2 under Rule 5 of the Customs
Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection
of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for
Page 2 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 ("the Anti-
Dumping Rules"), alleging that the product under
consideration was being dumped into India.
5. It is the petitioner's grievance that,
without undertaking the mandatory pre-initiation
scrutiny contemplated under the Anti-Dumping
Rules or satisfying itself as to the accuracy,
adequacy and sufficiency of the information
furnished by respondent No.3, respondent No.2
proceeded to initiate the anti-dumping
investigation solely on the basis of the
application submitted by respondent No.3 by
issuing the Initiation Notification dated
31.12.2024. According to the petitioner, the
initiation of the investigation was thus
undertaken without proper verification of the
factual assertions and supporting material
furnished by respondent No.3.
6. Pursuant to the issuance of the Initiation
Notification, respondent No.2, by Notice dated
10.02.2025, determined the final scope of the
product under consideration by adopting the
Product Control Number (PCN) methodology.
Page 3 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :
7. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi
submitted that respondent No.2 failed to disclose
the working, computation, methodology and
underlying basis adopted for determining the
exporter-specific dumping margin and injury
margin applicable to the petitioner.
8. While referring to Rule 16 of the Anti-
Dumping Rules, it is submitted that Rule 16 of
the Anti-Dumping Rules mandates respondent No.2
to disclose the essential facts under
consideration before recording the final findings
so as to afford the interested parties a real,
effective and meaningful opportunity to defend
their interests. It is contended that the failure
to disclose the detailed computation and working
of the dumping margin and injury margin deprived
the petitioner of the opportunity to identify and
point out factual, methodological and
computational errors before the issuance of the
final recommendation, thereby vitiating the
entire decision-making process on account of
violation of the principles of natural justice.
9. Learned Senior Advocate referred to the
Landed Value of imports and has contended that it
Page 4 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
is lower for the imports originating from the
People's Republic of China as compared to those
originating from the European Union. It was
contended that, under Rule 11 of the Anti-Dumping
Rules read with Annexure-I and Annexure-II
thereto, the Injury Margin is determined as the
difference between the Non-Injurious Price (NIP)
and the Landed Value of the imported goods,
namely: Injury Margin = Non-Injurious Price
(NIP)-Landed Value. It was submitted that where
the Non-Injurious Price remains constant or is
uniformly determined for the domestic industry, a
lower Landed Value must, as an inevitable
mathematical consequence, result in a higher
Injury Margin, whereas a higher Landed Value must
necessarily result in a correspondingly lower
Injury Margin.
10. Reference is made to the provision of Section
9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short
“the Act”) read with Rule 17(1)(b) of the Anti-
Dumping Rules, and it is submitted that the anti-
dumping duty cannot exceed the margin of dumping
and, in consonance with the lesser duty rule
recognised under the Indian anti-dumping
framework, the duty recommended is ordinarily
Page 5 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
restricted to the lower - (i) the dumping margin,
and (ii) the injury margin. It is submitted that
the impugned final findings are ex-facie contrary
to the statutory framework governing anti-dumping
investigations. Respondent No.2 has failed to
determine the export price in accordance with
Section 9A of the Act read with Clause 5 of
Annexure-I to the Anti-Dumping Rules, thereby
vitiating the determination of the dumping margin
and, consequently, the entire exercise
culminating into the impugned final findings.
11. It was further submitted that Rule 5(3) of
the Anti-Dumping Rules embodies a mandatory
jurisdictional pre-condition requiring respondent
No.2, before initiating an anti-dumping
investigation, to examine the accuracy and
adequacy of the material placed before it so as
to satisfy itself that sufficient prima facie
evidence exists regarding – (i) dumping, (ii)
injury to the domestic industry, and (iii) the
causal nexus between the two. According to the
learned advocate, the failure to undertake such
mandatory scrutiny renders the very initiation of
the investigation without jurisdiction and
vitiates all the consequential proceedings.
Page 6 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
12. Learned advocate for the petitioner placed
reliance on the following judgments of the Apex
Court in the cases of – (i) Reliance Industries
Ltd. vs. Designated Authority, [2006 (9) TMI
180]; (ii) Automotive Tyre Manufacturers
Association vs. Designated Authority, [2011 (1)
TMI 7], wherein it has been held that final
findings issued in violation of the prescribed
statutory methodology and principles of natural
justice are liable to be set aside.
13. According to the learned Senior Advocate for
the petitioner, such an anomalous and
irreconcilable outcome could arise only if there
exists a fundamental error in the computation of
the Landed Value, the determination of the Non-
Injurious Price, the calculation of the Injury
Margin, or the application of the lesser duty
rule. Any such error, it was submitted, strikes
at the very foundation of the impugned
determination and renders the final findings
legally unsustainable.
14. With regard to resorting to the alternative
remedy under Section 9C of the Act, it is
contended that it does not operate as a bar to
the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of
Page 7 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,
particularly when the impugned final findings
have been rendered in flagrant violation of the
principles of natural justice and in complete
disregard to the mandatory procedure prescribed
under the Customs Tariff Act and the Anti-Dumping
Rules. It was submitted that the present case
squarely falls within the well-recognised
exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy as
enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of
Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of
Trademarks, Mumbai & Ors., (1999) 8 S.C.C. 1, and
reiterated in paragraph No.27 of Radha Krishna
Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021)
6 S.C.C. 771.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS :
15. Opposing the present petition and foregoing
submissions, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Soparkar
appearing for respondent No.3 and learned Senior
Standing Counsel Mr.Ankit Shah, at the outset,
have submitted that the present petition may not
be entertained in view of availability of an
efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner
of filing an appeal under the provisions of
Section 9C of the Act. In support of the
submissions, reliance is placed on the decision
Page 8 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
of the Supreme Court in the case of Nitco Tiles
Ltd. vs. Gujarat Ceramic Floor Tiles Manufacturer
Association and Ors., (2005) 12 S.C.C. 454 and in
the case of Designated Authority and others vs.
SanDisk International Limited and Ors., (2018) 13
S.C.C. 402. They have also submitted that one of
the parties i.e. Automotive Tyre Manufacturers
Association, has already approached the Customs,
Excise and CESTAT Tribunal, New Delhi,
challenging the impugned final findings and the
Notification, and, thus, it is urged that any
observations made by this Court in the present
petition would have direct impact on the
proceedings before the CESTAT, New Delhi.
16. It is contended that the petitioner, by
alleging violation of the principle of natural
justice, has sought to invoke the jurisdiction of
this court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, whereas in fact, there is no violation
of principle of natural justice as canvassed by
the petitioner. Reference is made to the various
observations made by the competent authority i.e.
respondent No.2 in the impugned findings dated
20.03.2026 as well as the disclosure statement
dated 12.03.2026.
Page 9 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
17. It is contended that the respondents have
only questioned the determination of the anti-
dumping duty and the injury margin by alleging
that the same is not appropriately arrived at
looking to the domestic sales of the industry and
volume of dumped imports. It is submitted that
all these aspects can be considered by the
appellate authorities and it is argued that this
Court may not examine the magnitude of the injury
margin, as determined by respondent No.2, after
the same is determined by appreciating the
submissions advanced by the all the stakeholders,
including the petitioner and the respondents.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION :
18. The issue, which falls for deliberation, is
that whether in the facts of the case, the
petitioner can be relegated to avail the
alternative efficacious remedy of filing an
appeal, under Section 9C of the Act for
challenging the impugned final findings dated
20.03.2026, as well as the Notification No.11/
2026 dated 19.06.2024 issued by respondent No.2
or not.
19. The provisions of Customs 9C of the Act reads
as under :-
Page 10 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
“9C. Appeal.—
1[(1) An appeal against the order of
determination or review thereof shall lie to the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal constituted under section 129 of the
Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) (hereinafter
referred to as the Appellate Tribunal), in
respect of the existence, degree and effect of—
(i) any subsidy or dumping in relation to import
of any article; or
(ii) import of any article into India in such
increased quantities and under such condition so
as to cause or threatening to cause serious
injury to domestic industry requiring imposition
of safeguard duty in relation to import of that
article.]
[(1A) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be
accompanied by a fee of fifteen thousand rupees.
(1B) Every application made before the Appellate
Tribunal,—
(a) in an appeal under sub-section (1), for
grant of stay or for rectification of mistake or
for any other purpose; or
(b) for restoration of an appeal or an
application, shall be accompanied by a fee of
five hundred rupees.]
(2) Every appeal under this section shall be
filed within ninety days of the date of order
under appeal:
Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may
entertain any appeal after the expiry of the
said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied
that the appellant was prevented by sufficient
cause from filing the appeal in time.
(3) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving the
parties to the appeal, an opportunity of being
heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks
fit, confirming, modifying or annulling the
order appealed against.
(4) The provisions of sub-sections (1), (2), (5)
and (6) of section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962
Page 11 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
(52 of 1962) shall apply to the Appellate
Tribunal in the discharge of its functions under
this Act as they apply to it in the discharge of
its functions under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of
1962).
(5) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be
heard by a Special Bench constituted by the
President of the Appellate Tribunal for hearing
such appeals and such Bench shall consist of the
President and not less than two members and
shall include one judicial member and one
technical member.]”
20. Thus, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner is having an alternative efficacious
remedy of filing an appeal, challenging the
impugned final findings before the Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(CESTAT). Upon examination of the provision of
Section 9C of the Act, it is manifest that there
is nothing that prevents the CESTAT from
examining the legality and validity of the
disclosure statement and final findings and the
Notification issued under Section 9A of the Act.
However, we are also conscious of the well-
settled legal precedent that the extraordinary
powers of High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution cannot be eclipsed or restricted
even if an alternative efficacious remedy is
available to the parties.
Page 12 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
21. The law in this regard is well-settled in the
case of Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of
Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors., (1998) 8 S.C.C. 1,
and thereafter followed in series of the
judgements.
22. Thus, it is a settled legal precedent that if
there is gross violation of principles of natural
justice or violation of statutory provisions
governing the process of law, or lack of
jurisdiction, the High Court, while exercising
its extraordinary powers conferred under Article
of the 226 Constitution can always interfere with
such action even if there exists an alternative
efficacious remedy.
23. The petitioner has emphasized on the blatant
violation of principles of natural justice, by
alleging that the mandatory disclosure under Rule
16 of the the Anti-Dumping Rules read with Rules
6, 7, 11 and 17 of the Anti-Dumping Rules are
violated. It is also alleged that the injury
margin determined by respondent no.2 is
mathematically impossible, and respondent no.2
fell in error in determining the injury margin
since there is inconsistency in comparing the
landed value of imports and Non-Injurious Price
Page 13 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
(NIP). The petitioner has attempted to build its
case by comparing the erroneous export price and
landed value, which is contrary to Rule 11 of the
Anti-Dumping Rules. It is contended that the NIP
remains constant across all exporting countries
or is determined on a uniform basis for the
domestic enquiry, lower landed value must
invariably result in a higher injury margin and
conversely, a higher landed value must result in
a lower injury margin. It is alleged that the
valuation adopted by respondent No.2 and the duty
recommended in the statement of impugned findings
are inconsistent since the country of lower
value, landed value, has been recommended a lower
duty, whereas a country with higher landed value
has been recommended higher duty, when
arithmetically it must have a lower injury
margin. Thus, it is alleged that there is
fundamental error, in the computation of landed
value, or in the computation of NIP, or in the
determination of injury margin, or in the
application of lesser duty, which goes to the
root of the determination.
24. Thus, the case of the petitioner is premised
on the recommendation made in final findings,
Page 14 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
determined on an incorrect or faulty
determination.
25. As far as the allegations about adopting an
erroneous and a flawed methodology is concerned,
this Court cannot venture into the determination
or the valuation, adopted by respondent No.2, in
the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports
of sulfenamides accelerators. The disclosure
statement, which is produced on record, reveals
that respondent No.2 has in fact extensively,
considered all the aspects along with the
submissions of all the stakeholders, including
the opposing interested parties. In paragraph
No.38, while taking care of the arguments
advanced by the interested parties relating non-
sharing of the import data, it is recorded that
“the applicant before the authority, has
submitted that it has relied upon market
intelligence to compute the total volume and
value of imports from all countries and the same
has been made available to other interested
parties”. So far as the transaction-wise data is
concerned, which is procured by the authority, is
confidential in nature and is not shared by
Government of India. The same has not been
Page 15 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
disclosed to any interested party, including the
domestic industry. The authority has shared the
information of volume and price of imports which
is relevant under the Anti-Dumping Rules, the
information collected from the Directorate
General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics
(DGCI&S). It is further recorded that the
interested parties have been provided enough of
opportunity to defend their interest on the
information relevant to the investigation and
determination.
26. While referring to Rule 6 (7) and Rule 7 of
the Anti-Dumping Rules, it is also recorded in
paragraph No.39 that the authority has made
available the non-confidential version of the
information provided by various parties to all
other interested parties as per Rule 6(7) of the
Anti-Dumping Rules.
27. In paragraph No.40 of the disclosure
statement, the authority has taken care about the
submissions made by the domestic industry and the
participating exporters concerning
confidentiality, on information such as
production, capacity, capacity utilization,
sales volumes, market share, stocks, selling
Page 16 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
price etc. It is further recorded that wherever
information is for injury period, the same has
been provided on an indexed basis. The authority
has also maintained the business-related
sensitive information, as confidential. After
sharing all the data, as required under the Anti-
Dumping Rules, respondent No.2 has determined the
normal value, export price and dumping margin for
the subject countries as per the Anti-Dumping
Rules, more particularly Rule 9A(1)(c) of the
Anti-Dumping Rules.
28. The normal value and export prices for the
petitioner is also determined, as mentioned in
paragraph No.52 to 61.
29. In paragraph No.63, the dumping margin has
been determined, which has been doubted by the
present petitioner. The designated authority
while assessment of injury and causal link in
paragraph 64 has recorded the submissions of
interested parties, and has accordingly recorded
its findings. The determination of dumping margin
on the extensive scrutiny of data has been shared
among the interested parties. The High Court in a
writ petition, cannot venture into terra
incognita by doubting the methodology/valuation,
Page 17 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
since the same falls within the domain of the
designated authority who is an expert in the
subject. The analysis or scrutiny on the
confidential information is impermissible by the
High Court, in wake of the fact interested
parties have maintained the confidentiality. The
aspect of the procedure adopted by respondent
No.2 and the magnitude of injury margin, as
determined below paragraph No.119 cannot be
delved and examined by this Court, by High Court,
while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
and the appropriate authority would be the
Tribunal.
30. We shall now deal with the alleged breach of
Rules 6, 7, 11 and 17 of the Anti-dumping Rules.
Rule 6 regulates the principles governing
investigation. The petitioner has alleged
violation of sub-rule (6) of Rule 6, which
prescribes that, “the designated authority may
allow an interested party or its representative
to present the information relevant to the
investigation orally, but such oral information
shall be taken into consideration by the
designated authority.” On scrutiny of the
Page 18 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
disclosure statement, we find that the provisions
of neither Rules 6(6), 7, 11 nor Rule 17 have
been violated. The interested parties, including
the petitioner, have been given sufficient
opportunity of hearing. The disclosure statement
mentions that all the relevant data and
information have been shared with the interested
parties, and if it is the case of the petitioner
that the necessary information has not been
shared, the same can be examined by the Tribunal,
since we do not find that the petitioner has been
exclusively denied the information. Similarly, we
also do not find that there is any violation of
Rule 7 relating to confidential information, as
the designated authority has maintained full
confidentiality and has maintained the
confidentiality of the information on the request
of the interested parties and has followed the
provisions of Rule 7. Likewise, as regards Rule
11, which mentions the determination of injury,
and Rule 17, which stipulates the limitation and
recommendation of amount of duty after recording
the reasons leading to conclusion are concerned,
we find that the petitioner is questioning the
methodology/ valuation adopted by respondent
No.2, in determining the injury which cannot be
Page 19 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
scrutinized by this Court unless it is in gross
violation of Rules or principles of natural
justice.
31. In case the petitioner is deprived of some
information, it is always open to the petitioner
to point out the same before the fact-finding
authority i.e. the Tribunal. The Court cannot, in
the writ petition, delve into such aspects.
32. There is an additional ground which prevents
us from interfering with the Final Findings and
the Notification, i.e. the pendency of an
application before the CESTAT, New Delhi. The
impugned Final Findings dated 20.03.2026 are
challenged by the Automotive Tyre Manufacturers
Association by filing an application being Diary
No. 51523/2026 before the CESTAT. The petitioner
can adopt the same course.
33. Thus, we are not inclined to interfere with
the impugned final findings recorded by
respondent No.2 and the Notification in exercise
of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in
the absence of any gross violation of the
principles of natural justice, any violation of
Page 20 of 21
C/SCA/8794/2026 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2026
the statutory provisions governing the process of
law, or any lack of jurisdiction. Hence, the writ
petition fails and the same is dismissed. The
petitioner may avail of the remedy of filing an
appeal before the CESTAT, challenging the
impugned findings as well as the impugned
Notification.
Sd/- .
(A.S.SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/- .
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
***
Bhavesh-[PPS]* - Mahesh-[PS]*
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: BHAVESH PARSOTTAM KATIRA(HC00176), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 07/07/2026 15:13:58
Page 21 of 21
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "anti‑dumping"Sign in to search