Retrospective withdrawal of anti-dumping duty rejected; mid-term review operates prospectively and cannot reopen a final finding.

A mid-term review under the Anti-Dumping Rules cannot be used to retrospectively withdraw anti-dumping duty and unsettle an earlier final finding that was never challenged and had attained finality. The review mechanism operates on changed circumstances and may support discontinuance of duty prospectively, but it does not confer power to backdate relief or nullify the original notification. Rule 14, which allows termination of proceedings in appropriate cases, was not available to justify retrospective withdrawal in a review proceeding. The withdrawal recommendation therefore operated only prospectively, and retrospective relief was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether withdrawal of anti-dumping duty pursuant to a mid-term review could be given retrospective effect so as to unsettle the earlier final finding and the notification issued on that basis.

Analysis: The domestic manufacturers had stopped production during the original investigation, but that fact was not disclosed at that stage. The original final finding recommending imposition of duty was never challenged and had attained finality. The later mid-term review under Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules was undertaken only because of changed circumstances and resulted in a recommendation to discontinue the duty. The review mechanism could not be used to reopen or nullify the earlier final finding retrospectively, and there was no provision empowering the authority to grant backdated relief. Rule 14, which permits termination of proceedings in appropriate cases, was not available to support retrospective withdrawal in a review proceeding.

Conclusion: The request for retrospective withdrawal of anti-dumping duty was rejected, and the recommendation of withdrawal was held to operate only prospectively.

---