Mid-term anti-dumping review requires objective proof that dumping and injury have ceased before duty can be withdrawn.

Mid-term review of anti-dumping duty under section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act and Rule 23 turns on whether dumping margin, injury, and the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury still exist. The note explains that injury analysis under Rule 11 must consider import volume, price effects, non-injurious price, and causal link, tested against Annexure II. On the stated record, landed value remained below the non-injurious price, price undercutting persisted, and marginal improvement in domestic performance did not negate continuing injury or the risk of recurrence. It therefore treats revocation as unjustified and the original duty as continuing for the balance of its term.

---

---

Issues: Whether the mid-term review and the resulting withdrawal of anti-dumping duty were valid in law, and whether the material on record established that continued imposition of duty was no longer justified because injury and the likelihood of recurrence of injury to the domestic industry had ceased.

Analysis: The review under section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty) Rules, 1995 is directed to the question whether the basis of the existing duty still survives, namely dumping margin, injury, and the threat of continuation or recurrence of injury. The authority was required to assess injury under Rule 11 by reference to the volume and price effect of dumped imports, the non-injurious price, and the causal link between imports and injury, with the review evidence tested against the principles in Annexure II to the Rules. On the record, the landed value of the subject imports remained below the non-injurious price, price undercutting was present, and the adverse impact of dumped imports could not be dismissed by marginal improvements in profitability or turnover. The material also did not support a safe conclusion that injury was unlikely to recur if duty were withdrawn. The continued existence of significant dumping and the price effect of imports showed that earlier revocation was not warranted.

Conclusion: The withdrawal of anti-dumping duty was not justified and the impugned findings recommending revocation were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the withdrawal notification was set aside, and the original anti-dumping duty was treated as continuing for the remainder of its original statutory term.

Ratio Decidendi: In a mid-term review under Rule 23, anti-dumping duty can be revoked only if the objective material shows that dumping margin and injury no longer exist, or that there is no likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury; marginal improvement in the domestic industry does not by itself justify revocation when the landed value of imports remains below the non-injurious price.

---