New shipper review requires full disclosure and cooperation; delay alone will not invalidate findings without proven prejudice.

New shipper treatment and an individual dumping margin under Rule 22 depend on full disclosure, verifiable facts, and cooperation with the investigating authority. Where the record showed incomplete disclosure, doubtful status as a new entrant, and an unsupported transaction chain, the claim for separate treatment was rejected. Rule 22 does not prescribe a fixed time limit for completing a new shipper review, and delay alone does not invalidate the final findings unless legal prejudice is shown. On the facts recorded, the delay was explained by the review process and no prejudice was demonstrated, so the anti-dumping determination was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants established entitlement to New Shipper Review and an individual dumping margin under Rule 22; (ii) whether the delay in completion of the review and issuance of final findings vitiated the impugned determination.

Issue (i): whether the appellants established entitlement to New Shipper Review and an individual dumping margin under Rule 22.

Analysis: The appellants sought treatment as new shippers and claimed separate dumping margins. The record showed that the designated authority had examined the appellants' status, relationship pattern, and commercial transactions, including on-site verification. The findings recorded that some of the producers were not new entrants, that material facts about their existence and inter-relationship had not been fully disclosed, and that the transaction chain was not supported by reliable evidence. In the absence of transparent cooperation and complete disclosure, the claim for new shipper treatment and individual dumping margin could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The claim for New Shipper Review and individual dumping margin was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the delay in completion of the review and issuance of final findings vitiated the impugned determination.

Analysis: Rule 22 does not prescribe a fixed time schedule for completion of a new shipper review. The delay was explained by the designated authority by reference to repeated correspondence, the appellants' initial refusal to undergo on-site verification, their non-attendance at the first oral hearing, and the need for a fresh hearing after change of authority. The appellants did not demonstrate prejudice or any legal infirmity arising solely from the passage of time.

Conclusion: The delay did not vitiate the final findings.

Final Conclusion: The anti-dumping determination was upheld and the appeals were dismissed, with no interference called for in the findings of the designated authority.

Ratio Decidendi: In a new shipper review, entitlement depends on full disclosure, verifiable facts, and cooperation with the investigating authority; where Rule 22 prescribes no time limit, delay by itself does not invalidate the determination absent demonstrated legal prejudice.

---