W.P.(C) 17819/2025 $~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17819/2025 & CM APPL. 73587/2025 ALL-INDIA GLASS MFRS FEDERATION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kartik Nayar, Mr. Krish Kulra, Mr. Diyyansh Rai, Ms. Manjira Das Gupta & Mr. Prabhav Bahuguna, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Gupta, CGSC with Mr. Kumar Kartikeya, Adv. for R-1 to 4. Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advs. with Mr Gaurav Mathur, Ms Niyati Kohli, Mr Rishabh Parikh, Mr Pratham Vir Agarwal, Mr Rajesh Sharma & Mr Nikhil Sharma, Advs. for R-4 CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN O R D E R % 09.12.2025 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the Final Findings in Case No. AD (OI)-29/2024 dated 29th September, 2025 issued by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (hereinafter, ‘DGTR’). 3. The brief background of the present case is that an application was filed in the form of a complaint by the domestic industry i.e., Respondent No.4- Alkali Manufacturers’ Association of India, seeking imposition of Anti Dumping Duty (hereinafter, ‘ADD’) on the import of ‘Soda Ash’. The said This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 13:45:56 W.P.(C) 17819/2025 application is titled as ‘Application for Anti Dumping Investigation concerning imports of Soda Ash from USA, Russia, Turkey and Iran/UAE’. 4. Public notice of the said complaint was issued on 30th September, 2025 vide public notice bearing F. No. 06/31/2024-DGTR and the Anti Dumping Investigation was initiated. All the concerned parties were informed and comments were filed by the Petitioner and its various members. A Minimum Import Price (hereinafter, ‘MIP’) was imposed on 30th December, 2024 vide Notification No. 46/2024-25. The hearing was conducted by the concerned Authority under the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment, and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter, ‘the Rules’) and the impugned final findings were issued on 29th September, 2025. 5. The Petitioner which is an association of Glass Manufacturers which also imports soda ash has filed the present petition challenging the said final findings. 6. At the outset, Mr Jayant Mehta, ld. Sr. Counsel for Respondent No. 4 and Mr Abhishek Gupta, ld. CGSC for the Union of India, challenge the maintainability of the present petition. Ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the final findings of the Designated Authority are yet to be either accepted or rejected by the Central Government, hence, the present writ petition is premature. 7. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, however, raises the following three submissions: i. In terms of the amendment to Rule 5(3A) of the Rules, the Period of Investigation (hereinafter, ‘POI’) is to normally be 12 months, however, if the same is to be curtailed, reasons have to be recorded in writing. In the present case, the POI was only 9 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 13:45:56 W.P.(C) 17819/2025 months. ii. All the other investigations which have been conducted during the relevant period were for a period of 12 months and there is no reason given as to why the same is 9 months for the present case. A list of various other investigations are placed on record to show that the POI is normally twelve months. iii. The POI has been deliberately restricted to October, 2023 to June, 2024, though, the complainant has asked for a POI of six months and usually it should have been twelve months. According to the ld. Sr Counsel, the curtailment of the period from October, 2023 is with an intention to show the low prices whereas just before October, 2023, the average import price was Rs. 27,524/-. Thereafter, it came down to Rs. 25,107/- , Rs. 23,640/- and dropped even less. This has adversely affected the investigation. 8. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, ld. Sr. Counsel thus submits that the entire investigation is being jeopardized and is not fair. 9. Insofar as the issue of maintainability of the present petition is concerned, ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the reasons have to be recorded in detail failing which the POI has to be twelve months. 10. Mr. Jayant Mehta, ld. Sr. Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 places reliance on the recent decision of this Court dated 28th March, 2025 in W.P. (C) 1856/2025 titled ‘Exxonmonil Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.’ as also the decision in ‘Engel Machinery Changzhou Co Ltd v. Directorate General of Trade Remedies & Anr.’, 2025:DHC:4590-DB. Reliance is placed upon the said decisions to argue that the present writ petition would not be maintainable at this stage until and unless the Central This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 13:45:56 W.P.(C) 17819/2025 Government accepts the acceptance or rejection of the Final findings, and in any event, once the said decision is taken, the challenge would lie before Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘CESTAT’). 11. It is further submitted by ld. Sr. Counsel for Respondent No. 4 that the nine month POI was prescribed right from inception and the Petitioner had not questioned the same until filing of the written submissions. 12. On the last date i.e., 24th November, 2025, the Court wanted to satisfy itself as to the exercise undertaken by the Central Government and had also directed the Petitioner to place on record a list of all its members in the following terms: “13. After hearing submissions for the parties, this Court directs as under: i. The Petitioner shall place on record list of all its members as one of the allegations is that one of its members i.e., Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. has already approached the Madras High Court. In view thereof, let the complete list of all the members be placed on record with an Affidavit by the next date of hearing. ii. The Central Government shall produce the original file relating to the nine months POI on the next date of hearing.” 13. Today, the affidavit on behalf of the Petitioner Association has been filed which would show that there are 55 organizations as ordinary members, 72 organizations as affiliate members and 5 organizations as honorary members of the Petitioner Association. 14. As per the said affidavit, Saint Gobain India Pvt. Ltd. is stated not to be a member of the Petitioner Association. 15. Insofar as the Central Government is concerned, the copy of the e-file This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 13:45:56 W.P.(C) 17819/2025 where the notings are now stated to be maintained has been produced by Mr. Gupta, ld. CGSC. The Court has perused the same. 16. Mr. Gupta, ld. CGSC submits that this is a confidential noting. However, after perusing the same, the Court has put it to ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner as to whether the Petitioner wishes to avail of its remedies in accordance with law as there is a serious challenge to the maintainability of the present petition. 17. At this stage Mr. Nayar, ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the present petition would not be pressed subject to liberty being granted to the Petitioner to avail of its remedies in accordance with law. 18. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the direction that since the challenge is only to the Final Findings, the Petitioner is free to avail of its remedies in accordance with law in respect of the Final Findings or the subsequent decision of this Central Government based on the Final Findings. 19. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. All contentions on merits are kept open. 20. The note and the material placed on record by Mr. Gupta, ld. CGSC is returned to ld. Counsel. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. DECEMBER 9, 2025 kk/ck This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 13:45:56