Sunset review permits a reasonable investigation period and revised anti-dumping duty where the evidence justifies continuation.

In a sunset review, the absence of any statutory fixed period of investigation under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or the Anti-Dumping Rules allows the Designated Authority to choose a reasonable period; a 15-month period was therefore valid. The scheme of section 9A(1), section 9A(5), section 9AA and Rule 23 also permits continuation of anti-dumping duty at a revised rate where later material justifies that course. A review is not confined to carrying forward the original rate, and evidence suggesting likely continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury may support a different recommendation. The challenge to the review findings and the resulting notification failed, and the duty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Designated Authority could adopt a 15-month period of investigation in a sunset review. (ii) Whether anti-dumping duty could be recommended at a revised rate in a sunset review.

Issue (i): Whether the Designated Authority could adopt a 15-month period of investigation in a sunset review.

Analysis: Sunset review is a mandatory exercise to determine whether anti-dumping duty should continue beyond its normal five-year life. No provision in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or the Anti-Dumping Rules prescribes a fixed period of investigation for such review. In the absence of any statutory restriction, the accepted practice of selecting a period between six and eighteen months supported the choice of a 15-month period. The challenge based only on past practice of 12 months therefore lacked legal basis.

Conclusion: The 15-month period of investigation was held to be valid.

Issue (ii): Whether anti-dumping duty could be recommended at a revised rate in a sunset review.

Analysis: A cumulative reading of section 9A(1), section 9A(5) and section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, together with Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, permits the authority to recommend continuation of duty at a rate different from the original levy when the review warrants such course. The purpose of review would be defeated if only the original rate could be carried forward regardless of later material showing likely continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The finding that exports during the review period were low and at higher prices was accepted as stage managed and could be tested against surrounding data.

Conclusion: A revised anti-dumping duty rate could validly be recommended in a sunset review.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the sunset review findings and the consequent notification failed, and the anti-dumping duty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a sunset review, where the statute prescribes no fixed period of investigation, the Designated Authority may select a reasonable period and may also recommend continuation of anti-dumping duty at a different rate if the statutory scheme and evidence justify such recommendation.

---