‘Can’t hide key facts in China trade probe under confidentiality’
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the Indian government cannot withhold crucial information from industries affected by trade investigations by calling it “confidential.”
The court found that the government’s anti-dumping action on titanium dioxide imports from China breached disclosure norms and denied domestic manufacturers a fair chance to respond.
The ruling specifically concerns the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR)—the government’s trade remedy authority—which had investigated alleged dumping of titanium dioxide and issued final findings on February 12, 2025. These findings led to the Centre’s notification of May 10, 2025, imposing anti-dumping duty on imports from China.
The bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held that the DGTR had relied on information that was not shared in non-confidential form. The court observed that the DGTR must, under Rule 7(2) of the Anti-Dumping Rules and Article 6.9 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, communicate essential facts in a manner that allows interested parties to defend their position.
The India Paint Association, representing major domestic paint manufacturers, had challenged the DGTR’s disclosure statement of January 29, 2025, and the subsequent final findings. The association argued that the DGTR’s claim—that certain grades of “rutile through sulphate” titanium dioxide were produced domestically—was based on confidential information not disclosed in usable summary form, preventing verification or rebuttal.
Rejecting the government’s preliminary objection that the association should have first appealed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the court noted that the anti-dumping bench of CESTAT had not been constituted for more than a year, leaving the statutory remedy unavailable in practice.
As relief, the High Court quashed the DGTR’s final findings and the government’s notification of May 10, 2025, and remanded the matter to the designated authority.
The DGTR was directed to reconsider the case from the stage of the petitioner’s response, properly assess confidentiality claims, and issue non-confidential summaries wherever possible before drawing fresh conclusions.
The court also recorded that its earlier interim order of March 6, 2025, protecting the petitioner from the consequences of the notification, would continue to operate until the DGTR completes the reconsideration.
