https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336926 In a completed anti-dumping regime, a later change in corporate shareholding may be examined through the statutory review mechanism rather than by a mere ministerial correction. The Court held that the Designated Authority could not mechanically refuse a request for change of name and notification correction without verifying the alleged divestment and its effect on the earlier anti-dumping notification. It directed the Authority to confine its inquiry to whether Solvay SA had in fact divested its interest and, if that factual position was established, to recommend correction of the notification by corrigendum. en-us Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Aug 2017 11:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336926 In a completed anti-dumping regime, a later change in corporate shareholding may be examined through the statutory review mechanism rather than by a mere ministerial correction. The Court held that the Designated Authority could not mechanically refuse a request for change of name and notification correction without verifying the alleged divestment and its effect on the earlier anti-dumping notification. It directed the Authority to confine its inquiry to whether Solvay SA had in fact divested its interest and, if that factual position was established, to recommend correction of the notification by corrigendum. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 02 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336926