- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
DSK Legal Secures Landmark Victory For Indian Paint Association; Calcutta High Court Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty On Titanium Dioxide
DSK Legal secures landmark victory for Indian Paint Association; Calcutta High Court quashes anti-dumping duty on Titanium Dioxide
The leading law firm in India, DSK Legal, representing the Indian Paint Association (IPA), has secured a landmark victory before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the matter Indian Paint Association v. Union of India & Ors. [WPO/148/2025].
High Court Strikes Down Anti-Dumping Duty Imposed on Titanium Dioxide
By its judgment dated 22 September 2025, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court categorically set aside the final findings of the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR) and quashed the consequential anti-dumping duty imposed on Titanium Dioxide imports from China under Notification No. 12/2025-Customs (ADD) dated 10 May 2025. After nine days of extensive arguments spanning seven weeks, Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury held that the levy was illegal on the grounds that the DGTR’s findings were procedurally flawed and violative of principles of natural justice.
DGTR Findings Declared Vitiated and Unsustainable
IPA had argued that the investigation was procedurally flawed, substantively untenable, and cryptic in a manner that abridged IPA’s rights to an effective appeal. The Court agreed with all the grounds raised and held that the DGTR violated the anti-dumping framework and due process by relying on undisclosed and unverified confidential data, while disregarding IPA’s well-founded objections. The findings and the consequential levy were accordingly declared vitiated and unsustainable.
Relief to 90% of the Domestic Paint Industry
IPA, representing nearly 90% of the domestic paint industry, had consistently maintained that key product grades such as Rutile-Sulphate were not produced domestically and commercially sold, and therefore should not have been subjected to the anti-dumping investigation. Despite repeated representations, DGTR ignored these concerns and denied disclosure of material information, even in a non-confidential summary form. Titanium Dioxide is a critical raw material for the paint sector, and the order provides necessary relief to paint companies from the illegal levy of anti-dumping duty.
The judgment also settles the long-disputed issues concerning amendments to Section 9(C) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as well as Rule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995. The matter has been remanded to the DGTR for fresh consideration in accordance with the Court’s directives.
Representation
DSK Legal represented IPA with a team comprising Ashish Chandra (Partner), Anupal Dasgupta (Principal Associate), and Mahima Ahuja (Associate).
Additionally, Anushka Agarwal (erstwhile Associate) was part of the team.
Senior Advocate S.N. Mukherjee led the arguments on behalf of IPA.
Click to know more about DSK Legal
If you have a news or deal publication or would like to collaborate on content, columns, or article publications, connect with the Legal Era News Network Team and email us at info@legalera.in or call us on +91 8879634922.


