https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101228 In anti-dumping proceedings, the Designated Authority's selection of a six-month period of investigation was upheld because the framework did not require a mandatory twelve-month period and WTO-related guidance permitted a period of not less than six months. Allegations that differences in quality, production process, and other factors broke the causal link between dumped imports and injury were rejected for lack of supporting material, and the goods were treated as like articles. The objection that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had imported the goods also failed, as the record showed only limited imports outside the investigation period. The challenge to fixation of normal value was rejected because that remedy was not available to a party that was neither exporter nor manufacturer. en-us Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:38:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101228 In anti-dumping proceedings, the Designated Authority's selection of a six-month period of investigation was upheld because the framework did not require a mandatory twelve-month period and WTO-related guidance permitted a period of not less than six months. Allegations that differences in quality, production process, and other factors broke the causal link between dumped imports and injury were rejected for lack of supporting material, and the goods were treated as like articles. The objection that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had imported the goods also failed, as the record showed only limited imports outside the investigation period. The challenge to fixation of normal value was rejected because that remedy was not available to a party that was neither exporter nor manufacturer. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101228