Page 429 - MANUAL OF SOP

Manual of OP for Trade Remedy Investigations

17.26. The sunset review investigation requires the likelihood analysis(as described
in following para), of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury therefore
presence/absence of dumping and injury is not of sole significance unlike in an
original investigation. However, presence of dumping and injury makes the case
unequivocally strong .
13
17.27. The importance of likelihood analysis in sunset review investigation was
emphasized by CESTAT Delhi and also Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat , which has
14
15
set the guidelines for Sunset Reviews.
17.28. It is not obligatory to carry out the causal link analysis in a sunset review
investigation. However, as a matter of practice, the Authority does address the
issue in its findings. It may be mentioned that absence of causal link or breaking of
the causal link in a sunset review may not have a direct bearing on the outcome of
the sunset review.
17.29. Generally speaking, the duties can be modified or revised under a review
investigation because the Rule 23 (1) provides that “any anti-dumping duty imposed
shall remain in force so long as and to the extent necessary”. Further, Rule 23 (3)
makes provisions of Rule 17 applicable in the case of review wherein it is provided
that duty to be recommended should be such that if levied it would remove the
injury where applicable to the Domestic Industry after considering the principles laid
down in Annexure III. Duties cannot be imposed on a retrospective basis pursuant
to a sunset review .
16
Likelihood Analysis

17.30. In assessing the likelihood of continuing or recurrence of dumping and
injury, the inquiry may consider the following facts (the list is non-exhaustive):
(i) For assessing dumping the following indicators could be examined;

• volumes and values of the imported goods during the POI and post
POI (6 months subsequent to the POI);
• effectiveness of the duties in terms of the improvement in the
performance of the Domestic Industry;

13 Please refer to Para XVII of Chapter 24 for WTO Jurisprudence.
14 Indian Metal and Ferro Alloys Ltd V/s Designated Authority, 2008 (224) ELT 375 (CESTAT, New Delhi).
15 Nirma Limited vs Union Of India (2016) SCA 16426 to 16429 (High Court of Gujarat)
16 SABIC v Designated Authority, 2006 (200) ELT 488 (CEGAT, New Delhi).

406