Natural justice in anti-dumping inquiries requires disclosure of relied-upon material, and expired timelines bar remand for reconsideration.

In anti-dumping proceedings, relied-upon material must be disclosed to interested parties subject to the confidentiality rules, including transaction-wise import data and non-injurious price data, so that they have an effective opportunity to participate in the inquiry. Non-supply of such material breached natural justice and vitiated the final findings. The court also held that once the statutory time limit for completing the investigation had expired, the matter could not be remanded to the Designated Authority for reconsideration, as that would defeat the mandatory time structure governing the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the final findings were vitiated for non-supply of the transaction-wise import data, non-injurious price and other relied-upon material to the interested party despite a confidentiality claim; (ii) whether the matter could be remanded to the Designated Authority for reconsideration after expiry of the statutory time limit for completing the anti-dumping investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the final findings were vitiated for non-supply of the transaction-wise import data, non-injurious price and other relied-upon material to the interested party despite a confidentiality claim.

Analysis: The investigation under the anti-dumping rules is required to be conducted on positive evidence with an objective examination of the material relied upon. The interested parties must be given access to the evidence forming the basis of the determination, subject to the confidentiality safeguards in the rules. If information is claimed confidential, the authority must insist on a non-confidential summary or otherwise deal with the material in accordance with the rules. The non-supply of relied-upon data, including the material used for determining the non-injurious price, denied an effective opportunity of hearing and curtailed meaningful participation in the inquiry.

Conclusion: Yes. The final findings were vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter could be remanded to the Designated Authority for reconsideration after expiry of the statutory time limit for completing the anti-dumping investigation.

Analysis: The statutory scheme fixes a strict timeline for completion of the investigation and submission of final findings, with only a limited extension permitted in special circumstances. Once the permissible period had expired, a fresh remand for reconsideration would defeat the mandatory time structure governing anti-dumping proceedings. The post-decisional cure suggested by the respondents was therefore unavailable.

Conclusion: No. Remand was impermissible after expiry of the statutory period.

Final Conclusion: The impugned final findings were struck down for violating natural justice, and the writ petition succeeded without any remand for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: In anti-dumping proceedings, all relied-upon material must be disclosed to interested parties subject to the confidentiality rules, and where the statutory period for completing the investigation has expired, the proceedings cannot be revived by remand for a fresh hearing.

---