Page 400 - MANUAL OF SOP

Disclosure Statement & Final Finding

(ii) There is no mandatory requirement of Oral Hearing before issuance of
preliminary findings, however, post issuance of preliminary findings, hearing
must be conducted before finalising the Final Finding recommendations.

(iii) The duty imposed by Ministry of Finance on acceptance of recommendations,
is valid only for a period 6 months as per second proviso of Rule 13. However,
it can be extended for a further period of three months in case of request by
the exporter representing a significant percentage of the trade involved.
(iv) It may need to be clarified that the duties imposed under the final findings,
when notified are applicable from the date of imposition of preliminary
duties, if any as per Rule 20(2)(a) of the Anti Dumping Rules. However, as
per Rule 21(1), if the duties recommended in the Final findings are higher
than the provisional duties imposed, then the difference of the duties shall
not be collected from the importer.
16.70. The procedure of issue of notification and communication is same as
mentioned for Final Findings in aforesaid paras.

16.71. There can be no imposition of anti-dumping duty during the “gap period”
i.e. the period commencing from the expiry of the imposition of anti-dumping
9
duties provisionally determined and ending on the date of the final determination .
PRICE UNDERTAKING

LEGAL PROVISIONS
16.72. Section 9B(c)(ii) of the Act provides as follows:

(ii) any anti-dumping duty under section 9A, at any time, upon receipt of
satisfactory voluntary undertaking from any exporter to revise its prices or
to cease exports to the area in question at dumped price and if the Central
Government is satisfied that the injurious effect of dumping is eliminated by
such action.

16.73. Rule 15 of the Rules provides as follows:
RULE 15: Suspension or termination of investigation on price undertaking:

(1) The designated authority may suspend or terminate an investigation
if the exporter of the article in question, -
9 Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v GM Exports and Ors., (2016) 1 SCC 91 (Supreme Court of India). Also see
Commissioner of Customs v Raghav Enterprises, 2005 (189) ELT 461 (CEGAT, Bengaluru).

377