Anti-dumping notification amendment requires restored factual basis; substantive corporate restructuring did not justify a mere name change.

A post-investigation corporate restructuring did not justify amendment of the anti-dumping notification by corrigendum because the ownership structure had materially changed and the original factual basis was not restored. The Designated Authority could therefore refuse the requested name change and consequential lower duty treatment, as the alteration was not a mere clerical correction and would require resort to the statutory review framework where applicable. The refusal to amend the notification was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to a change of name in the anti-dumping duty notification on the basis of corporate restructuring and alleged exit of Solvay from the joint venture, and whether the Designated Authority was justified in declining the request on the ground that the ownership structure had materially changed and status quo ante was not restored.

Analysis: The anti-dumping determination was made on the basis of the factual matrix existing during the period of investigation, including the identity of the exporting entities and their ownership structure. The subsequent restructuring was not a mere renaming exercise, because the record showed changes in shareholding, entry of a new holding structure, and a materially different corporate arrangement from the one that existed during the investigation. In such circumstances, the Designated Authority was entitled to hold that a corrigendum could not be issued to alter the final findings and duty table, and that the request could not be granted without a fresh review under the anti-dumping framework. The Court also accepted that the earlier direction to examine Solvay's exit did not compel relief where the later inquiry showed that the factual premise for restoration of status quo ante was not established.

Conclusion: The refusal to amend the notification was upheld, and the petitioners were not entitled to the requested name change or consequential lower anti-dumping duty treatment.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions failed because the corporate changes were found to be substantive and not confined to a clerical or nominal change, so the impugned decision declining amendment of the anti-dumping notification was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A change in corporate ownership structure after the period of investigation does not justify amendment of an anti-dumping finding by corrigendum unless the factual basis of the original determination is restored and the statutory review mechanism is invoked where required.

---