https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213229 In a mid-term anti-dumping review under Rule 23, information from an interested party was sufficient to initiate the review, and no fixed waiting period before initiation was required. The review was confined to whether continued or enhanced duty remained justified on changed circumstances, and the earlier injury finding continued unless rebutted. The challenge to delay also failed because the review period could be extended under Rule 17(1) and was completed within the extended time. On the record, the authority considered injury, dumping margin and causal link, so the enhancement of anti-dumping duty was upheld. en-us Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 May 2012 09:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213229 In a mid-term anti-dumping review under Rule 23, information from an interested party was sufficient to initiate the review, and no fixed waiting period before initiation was required. The review was confined to whether continued or enhanced duty remained justified on changed circumstances, and the earlier injury finding continued unless rebutted. The challenge to delay also failed because the review period could be extended under Rule 17(1) and was completed within the extended time. On the record, the authority considered injury, dumping margin and causal link, so the enhancement of anti-dumping duty was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 17 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213229