https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211897 In anti-dumping proceedings, a change in the Designated Authority's incumbency did not automatically invalidate the final findings for want of a fresh hearing; procedural breach was assessed through the prejudice test, and the absence of renewed oral hearing did not justify outright quashing on these facts. The Tribunal was held to have appellate and incidental power to remand, and the expiry of the original investigation period did not bar directions for post-decisional hearing and reconsideration. A remand was therefore directed to balance the interests of the domestic industry and the affected importers while securing procedural fairness. en-us Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211897 In anti-dumping proceedings, a change in the Designated Authority's incumbency did not automatically invalidate the final findings for want of a fresh hearing; procedural breach was assessed through the prejudice test, and the absence of renewed oral hearing did not justify outright quashing on these facts. The Tribunal was held to have appellate and incidental power to remand, and the expiry of the original investigation period did not bar directions for post-decisional hearing and reconsideration. A remand was therefore directed to balance the interests of the domestic industry and the affected importers while securing procedural fairness. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211897