https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382652 The Court held that the Gujarat High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition due to the petitioner's manufacturing unit being located in Gujarat. It found the Designated Authority's refusal to initiate a sunset review under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act and Rule 23(1B) to be a misreading of the law. The Court criticized the Authority for not adequately considering the material evidence provided by the petitioner regarding dumping and potential injury. Consequently, the Court set aside the previous order and directed the Authority to conduct a sunset review and extend the anti-dumping duty as per legal requirements. en-us Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Feb 2020 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382652 The Court held that the Gujarat High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition due to the petitioner's manufacturing unit being located in Gujarat. It found the Designated Authority's refusal to initiate a sunset review under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act and Rule 23(1B) to be a misreading of the law. The Court criticized the Authority for not adequately considering the material evidence provided by the petitioner regarding dumping and potential injury. Consequently, the Court set aside the previous order and directed the Authority to conduct a sunset review and extend the anti-dumping duty as per legal requirements. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 03 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382652