Designated Authority must conduct sunset review when requested; Central Government decision invalidated for non-compliance.

The court held that the Designated Authority is obligated to conduct a sunset review when requested, emphasizing the need for a proper review process to determine the necessity of continuing anti-dumping duties. The Central Government's decision not to initiate a sunset review was found to be invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements. The court quashed the government's order and directed a reconsideration of the review request, specifying that imports of ferro-silicon from Russia and China should be cleared provisionally until the review is completed. The writ petition was allowed without costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Obligation of the Designated Authority to conduct a "sunset review."
2. Interpretation of anti-dumping provisions under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995.
3. Validity of the Central Government's decision not to initiate a sunset review.
4. Legal and procedural requirements for conducting a sunset review.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Obligation of the Designated Authority to Conduct a Sunset Review:

The primary issue is whether the Designated Authority is obliged to conduct a sunset review when requested. The judgment clarifies that the Designated Authority is under an obligation to conduct a sunset review if called upon to do so. The Central Government must then consider the recommendation and take a decision thereon.

2. Interpretation of Anti-Dumping Provisions:

The anti-dumping provisions under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act and Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff Rules were examined. Section 9A(5) mandates that anti-dumping duty shall cease after five years unless reviewed and extended by the Central Government. Rule 23 outlines the procedure for reviewing the need for continued imposition of anti-dumping duty. The judgment emphasizes the statutory duty of the Designated Authority to review the continuance of such duties.

3. Validity of the Central Government's Decision:

The Central Government's decision not to initiate a sunset review was challenged. The court found that the Designated Authority's and Central Government's decisions were not in conformity with the procedural requirements of Rule 23. The Central Government's order dated 20th July 2006, which upheld the Designated Authority's decision not to review, was quashed. The court held that a proper review must be conducted to determine the necessity of continuing the anti-dumping duty.

4. Legal and Procedural Requirements:

The judgment underscores that a sunset review is a well-recognized concept, both internationally and within Indian law. It is necessary to ensure that the cessation of anti-dumping duty does not lead to the recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry. The court highlighted the importance of a meaningful and elaborate review process as mandated by Rule 23, which should not be perfunctory.

Conclusion and Relief:

The court concluded that:
- A sunset review is mandatory.
- The review must be conducted in accordance with Rule 23 of the Rules.
- The Central Government's order dated 20th July 2006 is quashed.

The respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner's request for a sunset review, taking into account all relevant submissions and conducting the review in accordance with Rule 23. The court also directed that from 1st January 2008, all imports of ferro-silicon from Russia and China should be cleared on a provisional basis until the sunset review is completed and a final decision is taken. The writ petition was allowed on these terms without any costs.

---