https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333135 Anti-dumping duty could not be withdrawn retrospectively from the date the domestic industry ceased production because the rules did not confer any power to suspend, terminate, or refund duty with backdated effect. The Designated Authority could conduct a mid-term review under Rule 23 and make recommendations, but its role remained investigatory and recommendatory only. In the absence of any legal provision authorising retrospective revocation, relief from the date of plant closure was refused and the claim for backdated refund was rejected. en-us Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Apr 2017 10:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333135 Anti-dumping duty could not be withdrawn retrospectively from the date the domestic industry ceased production because the rules did not confer any power to suspend, terminate, or refund duty with backdated effect. The Designated Authority could conduct a mid-term review under Rule 23 and make recommendations, but its role remained investigatory and recommendatory only. In the absence of any legal provision authorising retrospective revocation, relief from the date of plant closure was refused and the claim for backdated refund was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 24 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333135