Sunset review anti-dumping duty turns on likely recurrence of dumping and injury, not a fresh causal link.

In a sunset review, continuation of anti-dumping duty depends on whether expiry is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, assessed on the factual indicators in the review rules and annexure. The original-investigation standard of re-establishing a fresh causal link and the section 9A(1) ceiling are not automatically imported into that exercise. On the facts, sufficient material supported a finding of likely recurrence, so continuation of duty was upheld. The authority also was not bound to treat the exporter as non-cooperative merely because questionnaire responses were incomplete; reliance on available facts remained permissible, and the request for residual duty was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the continuation of anti-dumping duty in a sunset review was justified on the basis of a likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury, and whether the ceiling under section 9A(1) applied or a fresh causal link had to be re-established; (ii) whether the foreign exporter was liable to be treated as non-cooperative so as to attract residual duty.

Issue (i): whether the continuation of anti-dumping duty in a sunset review was justified on the basis of a likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury, and whether the ceiling under section 9A(1) applied or a fresh causal link had to be re-established

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and rule 23(1B) of the 1995 Rules makes a sunset review a distinct prospective exercise focused on whether expiry of duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The relevant inquiry is not current injury but future likelihood, assessed on the factors in Annexure-II, including surplus capacity, export behaviour, price effects, and other indicators. On that footing, the Tribunal held that the Designated Authority had sufficient factual basis to conclude that dumped imports were likely to recur and injure the domestic industry. It further held that the rigour of section 9A(1), limiting duty to the dumping margin, does not govern continuation of duty under section 9A(5), and that a causal link between dumping and injury need not be re-established anew in a sunset review.

Conclusion: The continuation of anti-dumping duty was upheld; the challenge by the foreign exporter failed on merits.

Issue (ii): whether the foreign exporter was liable to be treated as non-cooperative so as to attract residual duty

Analysis: The Designated Authority had noted incomplete questionnaire responses and proceeded on the basis of available facts and weighted averages, but it exercised its discretion to complete the review without declaring the exporter non-cooperative. The governing rules permit reliance on available facts where information is withheld or inadequate, but do not mandate a non-cooperation finding in every such case. No perversity or illegality was shown in the Authority's approach, and the confidentiality and evidentiary objections did not justify the relief sought by the domestic industry.

Conclusion: The request to treat the exporter as non-cooperative and to impose residual duty was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Both appeals were dismissed, and the anti-dumping duty continued as recommended and notified.

Ratio Decidendi: In a sunset review, the authority must determine only whether expiry of anti-dumping duty is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury on a sufficient factual basis; the original-investigation standards, including re-establishment of causal link and the section 9A(1) ceiling, are not automatically imported into that review.

---