Anti-dumping review principles: deficient exporter disclosures justify facts available, and duty continues where injury would recur on withdrawal.

Where an exporter's disclosures are materially deficient, contradictory, or unreliable, the Designated Authority may treat it as non-cooperative and determine normal value from facts available, including partial reliance on the exporter's material and other sources. In a review of anti-dumping duty, the proper inquiry is whether injury is likely to recur if the duty is withdrawn, and the injury criteria are not a mere checklist. On the record showing rising import volumes, lower import prices, price undercutting, and continued pressure on the domestic industry, continuation of the duty was upheld and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Designated Authority was justified in treating the exporter as non-cooperative and determining normal value on the basis of facts available. (ii) Whether the finding of injury and causal link for continuation of anti-dumping duty was sustainable in the review proceeding.

Issue (i): Whether the Designated Authority was justified in treating the exporter as non-cooperative and determining normal value on the basis of facts available.

Analysis: The exporter's data was furnished in stages and contained gaps, discrepancies, contradictions, and an unsatisfactory allocation of common costs, particularly SGA and interest. The information supplied did not reliably reflect the cost of production, and the Authority was entitled to rely partly on the exporter's material and partly on other available sources to arrive at normal value.

Conclusion: The treatment of the exporter as non-cooperative and the resort to facts available were justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding of injury and causal link for continuation of anti-dumping duty was sustainable in the review proceeding.

Analysis: In a review, the relevant inquiry is whether injury is likely to recur if duty is withdrawn, and the criteria in the injury annexure are not a mere checklist. The record showed rising import volumes, declining import prices, price undercutting, and continued pressure on the domestic industry despite the existing duty, supporting the conclusion that withdrawal would lead to recurrence of injury.

Conclusion: The finding of injury and causal link was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The continuation of anti-dumping duty was upheld and the challenges to the review findings failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the exporter's disclosures are materially deficient, contradictory, and unreliable, the Designated Authority may determine normal value on facts available; in a review, continuation of duty is sustainable if the evidence shows that injury would recur on withdrawal.

---