Anti-dumping disclosure statement upheld where verification was not mandatory and PDF-format submissions did not vitiate the process.

In an anti-dumping investigation, an initial disclosure statement was not liable to be rescinded merely because the interested party objected to the mode of consideration of its response or alleged non-compliance with verification requirements. Rule 8 required the designated authority to satisfy itself about the accuracy of the information relied on, and the disclosure statement recorded specific deficiencies while keeping objections open before final determination. The operating manual did not make physical verification mandatory in every case, and consideration of material submitted in PDF rather than Excel format did not vitiate the process. The challenge was rejected, with limited procedural relief allowing resubmission of the same data in Excel format and comments within the extended time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disclosure statement issued in the anti-dumping investigation was liable to be rescinded for alleged non-compliance with the verification requirement and for considering the petitioners' response in PDF format rather than Excel format.

Analysis: Rule 8 of the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995 requires the designated authority to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of the information supplied by interested parties on which its findings are based. The disclosure statement recorded specific deficiencies in the petitioners' response, including identification of the product, PCN particulars and supporting data, and also stated that the parties would have an opportunity to file comments before final determination. The disclosure statement was only an initial step in a time-bound anti-dumping investigation and did not conclude the rights of the parties. The operating manual did not make physical verification mandatory in every case, and the authority's consideration of the response could not be faulted merely because the material was not filed in the preferred format.

Conclusion: The challenge to rescind the disclosure statement was rejected. The petitioners were permitted to place the same data in Excel format and to submit their comments within the extended time granted.

Final Conclusion: The petition was disposed of with limited procedural relief, while the disclosure statement was left undisturbed for the investigation to proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In an anti-dumping investigation, an initial disclosure statement need not be set aside merely because the interested party disputes the mode of consideration of its response, where the authority has recorded its assessment, further objections remain open, and physical verification is not mandatory in every case.

---