Anti-dumping comment period and natural justice: short notice did not create a right to extension within the statutory timeline.

Rule 16 of the anti-dumping regime requires the Designated Authority to disclose the essential facts under consideration before final findings, but it does not require a show-cause notice or a prior hearing in the manner of quasi-judicial adjudication. Rule 17 makes the investigation and final determination time-bound, reflecting the public and statutory character of the process. In that framework, a party has no legal right to insist on postponement of the comment period merely because the notice period is short, where the schedule must be completed within the prescribed timeline. No violation of natural justice was found, and no entitlement to extension of time arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to an extension of time for submitting comments in the anti-dumping proceedings and whether the impugned communication violated principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Rule 16 requires the Designated Authority, before final findings, to inform interested parties of the essential facts under consideration, but it does not contemplate a show-cause notice or a prior hearing in the manner of a quasi-judicial adjudication. Rule 17 makes the investigation and final determination time-bound, reflecting the public and statutory nature of anti-dumping proceedings. In that setting, the Court held that the petitioner had no legal right to insist on postponement merely because the notice period was short, especially when the exercise had to be completed within the prescribed schedule.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to extension of time, and no violation of natural justice was made out.

---