Retrospective withdrawal of anti-dumping duty rejected where rules gave no power for backdated revocation or refund.

Anti-dumping duty could not be withdrawn retrospectively from the date the domestic industry ceased production because the rules did not confer any power to suspend, terminate, or refund duty with backdated effect. The Designated Authority could conduct a mid-term review under Rule 23 and make recommendations, but its role remained investigatory and recommendatory only. In the absence of any legal provision authorising retrospective revocation, relief from the date of plant closure was refused and the claim for backdated refund was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether anti-dumping duty could be revoked retrospectively from the date of closure of the domestic industry and whether backdated relief or refund could be granted under the anti-dumping rules.

Analysis: The original anti-dumping duty had been imposed after investigation initiated on the basis of the domestic industry's application. When the domestic producers later informed the Designated Authority about stoppage of production, the authority initiated a mid-term review under Rule 23 and recommended withdrawal of duty from the date of withdrawal notification. The authority had only investigatory and recommendatory powers and the rules did not confer power to impose suspension, terminate duty retrospectively, or grant backdated relief or refund. In the absence of any legal provision permitting retrospective revocation, the plea for relief from the date of closure of the plant could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The claim for retrospective withdrawal of anti-dumping duty and backdated refund was rejected, and the appeals failed.

---