Sunset review of anti-dumping duty requires reasoned findings on likely recurrence of dumping and injury, not just current margin.

In a sunset review under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, anti-dumping duty may be continued or varied on a prospective assessment of whether expiry would likely cause continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury; the duty is not confined to the current dumping margin. The review authority may consider current or likely injury and must record good and sufficient reasons for any variation. On the facts described, the finding of likely recurrence of dumping and injury for imports from Singapore was held unsustainable because the reasoning relied on limited price trends, growth in imports and speculative inferences without a reasoned analysis of the material.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a sunset review under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the anti-dumping duty could be continued or varied without confining it to the current dumping margin. (ii) Whether the designated authority's finding of likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury in respect of imports from Singapore was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether, in a sunset review under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the anti-dumping duty could be continued or varied without confining it to the current dumping margin.

Analysis: A sunset review is prospective and is concerned with whether expiry of duty would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The current dumping margin is not the controlling parameter for continuation under Section 9A(5), because during the review period the duty itself may suppress dumped pricing. At the same time, the authority may examine the current or likely injury and may vary the duty if supported by good and sufficient reasons in the review findings.

Conclusion: The anti-dumping duty could be continued and, where justified, varied in a sunset review, and it was not necessary to restrict the duty to a current dumping margin.

Issue (ii): Whether the designated authority's finding of likelihood of recurrence of dumping and injury in respect of imports from Singapore was sustainable.

Analysis: The finding rested on a negative dumping margin, limited price trends, growth in imports, and a conjectural assumption about a possible shift in trade direction and increased domestic demand. The reasoning did not adequately analyse the material facts, did not explain the basis for the inference drawn, and treated dumped and non-dumped imports together without a convincing legal basis. The conclusion of likely recurrence of dumping and consequential injury was therefore not supported by a reasoned assessment of the relevant factors.

Conclusion: The finding of likelihood of recurrence or intensification of dumping and injury was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned sunset review findings and notification were set aside for the Singapore imports, and the matter was remanded for fresh determination with interim continuation of duty for the limited period directed by the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a sunset review, continuation or variation of anti-dumping duty depends on a reasoned finding of likely continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, and the authority is not required to limit the duty to the current dumping margin.

---