Anti-dumping review upheld where landed value exceeded non-injurious price and injury link was not shown.

A mid-term anti-dumping review was found validly initiated where the request contained sufficient particulars and the authority could assess adequacy on available information; the absence of a questionnaire response did not vitiate the review. On merits, withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on imports from EU and Canada was justified because landed value exceeded the non-injurious price, producing a negative injury margin and no causal link with domestic industry injury. The record also showed consideration of injury parameters, recovery trends, and the absence of likely recurrence of injury. Duty on other countries was maintained, and the review notification and partial withdrawal were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the mid-term review was validly initiated under Rule 23; and (ii) whether withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on imports from EU and Canada was justified because the landed value was higher than the non-injurious price.

Issue (i): Whether the mid-term review was validly initiated under Rule 23.

Analysis: The review request contained sufficient particulars and grounds to trigger consideration by the Designated Authority. The authority was entitled to assess whether the information was adequate, and the absence of a questionnaire response did not invalidate the review. The record showed that Rule 23, read with the review framework under Section 9A, required the authority to examine continued need for the duty on the basis of available information and relevant injury parameters.

Conclusion: The mid-term review was validly initiated.

Issue (ii): Whether withdrawal of anti-dumping duty on imports from EU and Canada was justified because the landed value was higher than the non-injurious price.

Analysis: The authority found that landed value exceeded the non-injurious price for imports from EU and Canada, resulting in a negative injury margin and absence of causal link between such imports and the domestic industry's injury. It also assessed injury parameters, price undercutting, market share, capacity utilisation, profitability, and likelihood of recurrence, and concluded that the domestic industry was on the path to recovery. On that basis, the authority held that continued duty was not warranted for EU and Canada, while duty on other countries was maintained.

Conclusion: Withdrawal of duty on imports from EU and Canada was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the impugned review notification and the consequential withdrawal of duty for EU and Canada were found to be supported by the record and the statutory review framework.

Ratio Decidendi: In a review under the anti-dumping regime, if the landed value of imports is higher than the non-injurious price and the material on record shows no causal link or likelihood of continued injury, withdrawal of anti-dumping duty is justified.

---