INDIAN PAINT ASSOCIATION vs SHRI ARVIND SHRIVASTAVA AND ORS

OD-07


CC/119/2025
Arising out of
WPO 148 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION (CONTEMPT)
ORIGINAL SIDE


INDIAN PAINT ASSOCIATION
VERSUS
SHRI ARVIND SHRIVASTAVA & ORS.


Before:
The Hon’ble Justice RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY
th
Date: 8 May 2026

Appearance:
Mr. Ashish Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Anupal Dasgupta, Advocate
Mr. Shubrojyoti Mookherjee, Advocate
Mr. Arnab Roy, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. N. Venkatraman, Ld. ASG
Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anurag Roy, Advocate
For the alleged contemnors


1. The contempt application has been filed complaining non-
nd
compliance of the judgment and order dated 22 September 2025,
inter alia, on the ground that notwithstanding this Court quashing
th
of the final findings dated 12 February 2025 in Initiation
th
Notification Case no. AD(OI)-03/2024 dated 28 March 2024 and
th
the Notification No. 12/2025-Customs (ADD) dated 10 May 2025
of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of
India levying the recommended anti-dumping duties, the alleged

2

contemnors have continued to act in furtherance of the notification
th
no.12/2025-Customs (ADD) dated 10 May 2025 of the
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India
and levy anti-dumping duties on import of Titanium Dioxide from
China PR.
th
2. The matter was initially moved on 14 November 2025 whereupon
this Court had directed service of the contempt application on the
alleged contemnors. Pursuant to the aforesaid order the alleged
contemnors had caused appearance through the learned
th
Additional Solicitor General on 5 December 2025 and an
th
accommodation was sought for. Later, on 12 December, 2025 the
th
communication dated 5 December, 2025 issued by the Director,
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue
was placed before this Court to contend that such direction was
nd
issued in compliance of the direction passed by this Court on 22
September 2025. On the said date, the Court was, however, of the
view that since it was not clear from the above communication as
to the status of the levy that had already been collected by the
nd
respondents post 22 September, 2025, the respondents were
directed to obtain appropriate instructions as to whether there was
any proposal pending at the end of the Government for return of
nd
the levy already collected. Subsequently, on 22 December, 2025
since, it was submitted by Mr. Kundalia, learned senior advocate
representing the alleged contemnors by placing the communication
th
dated 18 December, 2025 that the anti dumping duty collected

3

after the date of the judgment, would be refunded subject to
compliance with the procedure under Customs Act, 1962 and
Rules framed thereunder, this Court, in the light of such
disclosure, had directed the alleged contemnors to file affidavit of
compliance. Pursuant to such direction, affidavit of compliance has
been filed by the alleged contemnors in Court.
3. Today, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
alleged contemnors has drawn the attention of this Court to
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit of compliance and the
th
communication dated 5 December, 2025 and would submit that
due to an inadvertent misinterpretation of the direction contained
nd
in the order dated 22 September, 2025 that the customs
authority had mistakenly by misinterpreting such direction had
continued to collect the anti dumping duty. However, the same has
th
been corrected by issuing the communication dated 5 December,
2025. It is still further submitted that Secretary, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance the alleged contemnor no.1 has
rd
categorically stated in his affidavit of compliance affirmed on 3
March 2026 that the levy of anti dumping duty was stopped
promptly and a decision was taken to refund the amount collected,
immediately after the contempt proceeding was initiated before this
Court.
4. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the
petitioner has already in terms of the above direction applied for
refund of the anti dumping duty which was collected. Such

4

applications are under process and as such, the contempt
application should not be continued any further.

5. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appears for the petitioner. Though at the
very outset, he sought for an adjournment, however, considering
the fact that the alleged contemnors have already filed individual
affidavits in the matter and have stated that a decision has been
made to refund the levy already collected, this Court has taken up
hearing of this matter. Mr. Roy, by drawing attention of this Court
to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, would submit that
though the petitioner had applied for refund relying on the
th
communication dated 18 December, 2025, however, the refund
applications, which are pending for more than six months, are yet
to be processed. He submits that the respondents cannot be
permitted to hold on to the levy which has been illegally recovered
nd
post the order dated 22 September 2025. In fact, the entire levy
being contrary to the order is bad and should be refunded
forthwith.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
nd
parties, I find that though after the order dated 22 September
2025 was passed, no levy ought to have been collected as basis for
collection of the anti-dumping duty stood removed. However, as
submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General, there has
been an inadvertent misinterpretation of the direction passed by
this Court. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit affirmed by the alleged

5

contemnor no.1. More fully to appreciate the same, the relevant
paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow:
“4. I further state that in pursuance of Hon'ble Court's
direction for clarification of the said Instruction dated
05.12.2025, it has been specified that the refund of the
anti-dumping duty collected after Hon'ble Court's
judgement dated 22.09.2025 is admissible subject to
compliance with the procedure under the Customs Act,
1962 and Rules framed thereunder.
5. I submit that the concerned Customs authority
continued levying anti-dumping duty solely due to an
inadvertent misinterpretation of the direction that "Levy
if any, collected in the meantime shall be subject to the
final outcome of the proceedings." The Customs
authority mistakenly interpreted this direction as that
anti-dumping duty may be collected till the matter was
reconsidered by the Designated Authority as per
Hon'ble Court's directions. It is submitted that the same
does not amount to wilful or deliberate non-compliance
with the Hon'ble Court's judgment. The levy of anti-
dumping duty was stopped promptly, and a decision
was taken to refund the amount collected, immediately
after the contempt proceedings were initiated before this
Hon'ble Court.”


7. Having regard to the above and the explanation provided and since
a decision has already been taken to stop collecting anti dumping
duty promptly and to refund the amount collected, and since the
petitioner, availing the above decision, has already applied for
refund, I am of the view that no fruitful purpose would be served in

6

retaining the contempt application on the file especially when the
alleged contemnors have been able to appropriately explained the
circumstances under which they had continued to collect the anti
dumping duty. Further, since it has been submitted by the learned
Additional Solicitor General of India that the petitioner’s
applications for refund shall be immediately processed in
furtherance to the statement made in paragraph 5 of the aforesaid
affidavit, this Court by relying on the same and noting that the
refund application shall be immediately processed, considers it
appropriate not to proceed with the contempt application any
further.
8. Accordingly, the contempt application (CC/119/2025) stands
disposed of, without any order as to costs.


(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)





R. Bose/sm