Sunset review anti-dumping duty sustained where confidentiality objections failed and no contrary evidence displaced likely recurrence of injury.

Confidentiality objections to the sunset review failed because the non-injurious price and dumping data were protected within the anti-dumping framework, the relevant margins and methodology had been disclosed in the final findings, and no prejudice was shown. The domestic industry objection also failed: Rule 2(b) did not bar treating a sole producer as the domestic industry on these facts, and related exports to a non-subject country did not disqualify it. Injury, return on capital, and causal link findings were sustained because the record showed deterioration in performance and the appellant produced no contrary evidence. Section 9A(5) permits continuation of anti-dumping duty where cessation is likely to cause recurrence of dumping and injury, and that conclusion was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sunset review and continuation of anti-dumping duty were vitiated for breach of natural justice or improper confidentiality in relation to non-injurious price and dumping data; (ii) Whether the domestic industry had been wrongly treated as eligible, including the objection that a sole producer could not constitute the domestic industry; (iii) Whether the determination of injury and return on capital was unsupported by objective evidence and whether a causal link between dumped imports and injury was established; (iv) Whether continuation of anti-dumping duty on the basis of the sunset review was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the sunset review and continuation of anti-dumping duty were vitiated for breach of natural justice or improper confidentiality in relation to non-injurious price and dumping data.

Analysis: The confidentiality of the data used for non-injurious price was protected under the anti-dumping framework. The relevant injury and dumping margins had been disclosed in the final findings, and the appellant was not shown to have suffered any prejudice from the asserted non-disclosure. The disclosure statement also indicated the methodology adopted for normal value and export price, and no effective objection had been filed to the methodology at that stage.

Conclusion: The challenge based on breach of natural justice and confidentiality failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the domestic industry had been wrongly treated as eligible, including the objection that a sole producer could not constitute the domestic industry.

Analysis: The eligibility of the domestic industry was examined in the final findings. Rule 2(b) permits exclusion of related domestic producers in appropriate cases, but the facts relied on by the appellant did not disqualify the producer concerned. The existence of exports by related entities to a non-subject country did not affect the investigation covering the subject countries, and there was no legal bar to treating the sole producer as the domestic industry.

Conclusion: The objection to the standing of the domestic industry was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the determination of injury and return on capital was unsupported by objective evidence and whether a causal link between dumped imports and injury was established.

Analysis: The Tribunal accepted the consistent practice of adopting 22% return on capital in the relevant industry, particularly when no contrary evidence was produced by the appellant. The final findings had also recorded deterioration in the domestic industry's performance and had addressed injury parameters. In the absence of empirical material to dislodge those findings, the causal connection between dumped imports and injury was not disproved.

Conclusion: The findings on injury, return on capital, and causal link were upheld.

Issue (iv): Whether continuation of anti-dumping duty on the basis of the sunset review was justified.

Analysis: Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 authorises extension of anti-dumping duty where cessation is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The Tribunal found no empirical evidence from the appellant to displace the Designated Authority's conclusion that withdrawal of duty would likely result in recurrence of dumping and injury. The sunset review findings were therefore sustained.

Conclusion: The continuation of anti-dumping duty was held to be justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in all material respects and the anti-dumping duty, as continued pursuant to the sunset review, was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a sunset review, anti-dumping duty may be continued where the designated authority's reasoned finding of likely recurrence of dumping and injury is not displaced by contrary evidence, and procedural confidentiality does not vitiate the decision absent demonstrated prejudice.

---