Anti-dumping notification correction depends on verifying post-investigation shareholding changes through the statutory review process.

In a completed anti-dumping regime, a later change in corporate shareholding may be examined through the statutory review mechanism rather than by a mere ministerial correction. The Court held that the Designated Authority could not mechanically refuse a request for change of name and notification correction without verifying the alleged divestment and its effect on the earlier anti-dumping notification. It directed the Authority to confine its inquiry to whether Solvay SA had in fact divested its interest and, if that factual position was established, to recommend correction of the notification by corrigendum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Designated Authority could refuse the petitioners' request for change of name and corresponding correction in the anti-dumping duty notification without undertaking a review inquiry; (ii) whether the Authority ought to confine its inquiry to the genuineness and effect of the subsequent divestment of shareholding by Solvay SA and, if established, recommend correction of the notification by corrigendum.

Issue (i): Whether the Designated Authority could refuse the petitioners' request for change of name and corresponding correction in the anti-dumping duty notification without undertaking a review inquiry.

Analysis: The original anti-dumping determination had been made after examining the petitioners' exports and injury on the basis of the then-existing corporate structure. The subsequent restructuring and temporary joint-venture shareholding altered the factual position, and the Authority was justified in treating a mere correction of the notification as not mechanically feasible. At the same time, the Authority's power under Rule 23 of the Anti-Dumping Rules is directed to review of the need for continued imposition of duty and does not permit reopening beyond what is necessary to test the present corporate status and its effect on the earlier notification.

Conclusion: The request could not be granted by a simple correction without first verifying the changed shareholding position, but the Authority was required to proceed in accordance with the review mechanism.

Issue (ii): Whether the Authority ought to confine its inquiry to the genuineness and effect of the subsequent divestment of shareholding by Solvay SA and, if established, recommend correction of the notification by corrigendum.

Analysis: Since the basic dumping and injury investigation had already been completed, the later development relevant to the petitioners was the alleged divestment by Solvay SA and restoration of the earlier position. The Court held that the Authority should restrict itself to examining whether that divestment had in fact occurred and whether Solvay SA no longer held a significant interest in the joint venture. If that factual position was established, the Authority should accept the request for change of name and recommend suitable correction to the Central Government.

Conclusion: The Authority was directed to confine its inquiry to the divestment issue and, if satisfied, recommend correction by corrigendum in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, and the petitioners obtained a direction for limited reconsideration focused on the changed shareholding structure, with consequential correction of the anti-dumping notification if the factual basis was verified.

Ratio Decidendi: In a completed anti-dumping regime, a later corporate restructuring affecting the factual basis of the original notification may be examined through the statutory review process, and if the altered shareholding status is verified, the notification may be corrected accordingly.

---