Sunset review of anti-dumping duty upheld where prospective assessment showed likely continuation of dumping and injury.

In a sunset review of anti-dumping duty on NBR imported from Korea RP, the decisive question was whether withdrawal of duty was likely to cause continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. CESTAT held that the Designated Authority could initiate the review under Rule 16 and was entitled to rely on prospective economic assessment rather than the full rigours of an original investigation. It found that interested parties had participated and received disclosure statements, and that the record supported growth in imports, price effects, and likely continued injury if duty were removed. The challenge to continuation of the duty therefore failed, and the recommendation to continue duty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the second sunset review and the consequent continuation of definitive anti-dumping duty on NBR imported from Korea RP were valid, and whether the Designated Authority's findings on likelihood of continued dumping and injury suffered from procedural or substantive infirmity.

Analysis: The appeal challenged continuance of anti-dumping duty on the grounds of alleged non-disclosure, inadequate opportunity to respond, and erroneous assessment of import trends, dumping margin, and injury. The Tribunal held that a sunset review is prospective in nature and is concerned with whether removal of duty would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. It accepted that the Designated Authority was empowered to initiate the review under Rule 16 of the Anti-dumping Rules and that the interested parties had participated in the proceedings and received disclosure statements, including a partly revised disclosure statement. The Tribunal further held that, in such a review, the Designated Authority is not required to follow the same rigours as in the original investigation, and that the material on record supported the finding that imports from Korea RP had grown, price effects existed, and continuation of injury was likely if duty were withdrawn.

Conclusion: The challenge to the continuation of anti-dumping duty failed, and the findings recommending continuation of duty were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In a sunset review, the decisive question is whether withdrawal of anti-dumping duty is likely to cause continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, and the Designated Authority may rely on prospective economic assessment rather than the full rigours of an original investigation.

---