Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Designated Authority was justified in recommending against continuation of anti-dumping duty in the sunset review on the ground that the domestic industry had not established likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.
Analysis: The review under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Rule 23 of the Anti Dumping Rules, 1995 is prospective and requires assessment of whether withdrawal of duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The determination must rest on past and present facts and relevant economic indicators, not on proof of future events by direct evidence. The material placed showed positive dumping margins, excess export capacity, limited alternative markets, price attractiveness of the Indian market, continued vulnerability of the domestic industry, and non-participation of exporters. The Authority erred in insisting on proof that excess capacity would definitely be diverted into India and in treating the existing position as insufficient to support likelihood.
Conclusion: The negative recommendation of the Designated Authority could not be sustained and the appeal succeeded.