Page 427 - MANUAL OF SOP

Manual of OP for Trade Remedy Investigations

17.15. The domestic industry is required to substantiate the application with
sufficient evidence showing the need for continuation of anti-dumping duties. The
Applicant is required to make a case that cessation of anti-dumping duty would
result in recurrence of dumping and injury to the domestic industry.

17.16. The Application can be filed against all the subject countries or against only
some countries depending on the facts and circumstances of case.

17.17. The important distinguishing feature in initiation of Sunset review
Investigation vis-à-vis original investigation is that the Authority must also undertake
likelihood analysis to examine whether cessation of duty will result in recurrence of
dumping as well as injury . Other relevant factors that must be considered are the
7
change in pattern of production, demand and requirement of the dumped product
in the importing country since the imposition of the anti-dumping duty and the
8
change in prices in the exporting market and the international market .
17.18. The sunset review is limited to evaluate whether conditions which existed
at the time of imposition of anti-dumping duty have altered to such an extent that
there is no longer justification for continued imposition of duty or to ascertain
that if such duty is revoked, there is imminent danger of the material injury to the
9
domestic industry .
17.19. The examination of sunset review application may also consider any changes
in the constitution/ ownership of the applicant domestic industry if such applicant
was also the domestic industry in the earlier investigation(s). It may be examined
whether such change was duly informed to the Authority and has an impact on the
economic parameters of the company. Similar exercise will be followed regarding
the Producer Exporter(s) from the subject countries as detailed in Trade Notice No.
12/2018 dated 17.09.2018.

17.20. While considering the case for initiation, an opportunity of personal hearing
should be given to the Applicant for presenting their case to the Designated
Authority .
10
17.21. In case sufficient evidence is not found and the Authority comes to a
conclusion after examination of the submissions and the presentation made by

7 Vinati Organics v Designated Authority, 2001 (127) ELT 629 (CEGAT, New Delhi).
8 Indian Graphite Manufacturers Association v Designated Authority, 2006 (199) ELT 722 (CEGAT, New Delhi).
9 Apar Industries Ltd. v Ministry of Finance, The Designated Authority, 2006 (200) ELT 34 (CEGAT, New Delhi).
10 Please refer to Para XVII of Chapter 24 for WTO Jurisprudence.

404