https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208926 In a sunset review of anti-dumping duty on NBR imported from Korea RP, the decisive question was whether withdrawal of duty was likely to cause continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. CESTAT held that the Designated Authority could initiate the review under Rule 16 and was entitled to rely on prospective economic assessment rather than the full rigours of an original investigation. It found that interested parties had participated and received disclosure statements, and that the record supported growth in imports, price effects, and likely continued injury if duty were removed. The challenge to continuation of the duty therefore failed, and the recommendation to continue duty was upheld. en-us Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Feb 2012 08:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208926 In a sunset review of anti-dumping duty on NBR imported from Korea RP, the decisive question was whether withdrawal of duty was likely to cause continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. CESTAT held that the Designated Authority could initiate the review under Rule 16 and was entitled to rely on prospective economic assessment rather than the full rigours of an original investigation. It found that interested parties had participated and received disclosure statements, and that the record supported growth in imports, price effects, and likely continued injury if duty were removed. The challenge to continuation of the duty therefore failed, and the recommendation to continue duty was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 03 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208926