1. LEGAL PROVISION

 

Rule 23(1A) reads as under:

 

(1A) The designated authority shall review the need for the continued imposition of any anti-dumping duty, where warranted, on its own initiative or upon request by any interested party who submits positive information substantiating the need for such review, and a reasonable period of time has elapsed since the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty and upon such review, the designated authority shall recommend to the Central Government for its withdrawal, where it comes to a conclusion that the injury to the domestic industry is not likely to continue or recur,  if the     said anti-dumping duty is removed or varied and is therefore no longer warranted.

 

2. OPERATING PRACTICE

 

The MTR can be initiated by the Authority on its own initiative or on receipt of Application from the interested parties.

 

The established practice of the Authority is to always conduct a comprehensive review which includes analysis of dumping, injury, causal link and likelihood of injury.

 

The scope of the review inquiry by the Designated Authority is limited to the satisfaction as to whether there is justification for continued imposition of such duty on the information received by it. By its very nature, the review inquiry should be limited to see as to whether the 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 the duty. The inquiry is limited to the change in the various parameters like the normal value, export price, dumping margin, fixation of non-injurious price and injury to domestic industry.

 

The scope of Mid-term Review covers the following:

 

(i) Withdrawal/modification of existing AD duties on the ground of changes in the normal value, export price, non-injurious price, dumping margin or injury margin which are of lasting nature;

 

(ii) Change in the name of the producer/exporter;

 

(iii) Change in the form of duty;

 

(iv) Exclusion of products from scope of PUC; and

 

 (v) Any other specific amendment/modification to the Final Findings.

 

The MTR can be initiated only during the tenure of thee xi sting duty. The application must be filed between 12 months to 42 months from the date of imposition of duty. The time for filing MTR application was earlier also mentioned in Trade notice No.1/2004 dated 15.3.2004 and Trade Notice 1/2010 dated 17.5.2010, which are in force to the extent they are not contrary to the present timeline instructions contained in Circular No. 2 dated 27.2.2018.

 

The Product under Consideration can be modified in a Mid Term Review investigation on a specific request from interested parties seeking exclusion of some product types from whole of the PUC. In no case the scope of product can be widened or enlarged. Refer chapter-2 for discussion on PUC.

 

An application to review the duties/scope can be filed by any interested party such as domestic industry or exporters or importers,users or associations on behalf of their members.

 

The methodology for conducting MTR investigation, is broadly similar to that of original antidumping investigation. The investigation has to be completed within a period of 12 months.

 

The Applicant is required to substantiate the Application with positive evidence showing the need for review of the original investigation due to “lasting nature of changed circumstance”.

 

The important distinguishing feature in initiation of Mid-term review Investigation vis-à-vis original investigation in the matter of increased/decreased/ discontinuation of duty, is that there is a need to undertake likelihood analysis to examine impact of the review sought by the applicant.

 

An opportunity of personal hearing may be given to the Applicant for presenting their case to the Designated Authority. Subsequent to the hearing and examination of the submissions, if the Authority comes to the conclusion that the case is not fit for initiation, a speaking order for termination must be communicated to the applicant.

 

In case prima facie sufficient evidence is found in the application for initiation of Mid-term Review, a Notification should be issued with the approval of the DG as per the procedure described in Chapter 6 of this Manual.

 

There is a flexibility with the Authority to receive application for Mid- term review against all the subject countries or only against some of the subject countries. Further, even when the initiation is done against many subject countries, the investigation could result in recommendation/ modification of duty against none, some or all, depending on the facts and merit of the case.

 

The Mid-term review investigation requires the analysis of dumping, injury as well as likelihood analysis (as described in aforesaid paras), of continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury.

 

In Mid-term review investigation, the authority can arrive at a conclusion for modification by way or increase or decrease of existing Anti-dumping Duties imposed vide original investigation.

 

If the review application is based on a change in the variables like normal value, export price, non-injurious price, dumping margin or injury margin, then it must necessarily contain the details of such changes along with necessary evidence.

 

If the application seeks revocation of the duties, the applicant is required to provide evidence of the grounds on the basis of which such a claim is made.

 

A review for revocation also includes an examination of the current economic performance of the Domestic Industry as part of assessing whether the injury would be likely to recur following any revocation of the anti-dumping measure.

 

Mid Term Review on Suo Moto  Basis

 

For initiating MTR on its own initiative, the Authority can rely on many sources of information namely:

 

(i) Letter/representation with credible information, which prima facie shows the need for suo motu initiation;

 

(ii) Credible news reports in print or electronic media;and

 

(iii) In house analysis based on available source of information regarding import prices and domestic prices of the subject goods by the Directorate.

 

The change in constitution/ ownership and its consequential impact on costs on account of merger/ amalgamation/ acquisition/ liquidation/ closure etc. of the applicant domestic industry can also be the reason for initiation of MTR on suo motu basis.

 

In above situations, the views/comments of stakeholders can also be sought on the website of the Directorate. Based on feedback/information received the Authority can take decision on initiation of Mid Term Review investigation.

 

Comprehensive extended Mid Term   Review

 

If the application for MTR is filed by only one exporter from a subject country whereas there are multiple exporters from that country who were given individual duty rates, in that case it is advisable to initiate MTR against the subject country as a whole. This would entail initiation to review dumping, injury and likelihood against all the exporters of that particular country.

 

Further, when there are multiple countries and an application is received against one or two countries only that too quite late in the existence of the duty and there are sufficient grounds to consider initiation, then in that case it may be more preferable to initiate comprehensive review against all the subject countries, which otherwise also would have been due within a short period of time.

 

If the comprehensive review is undertaken, then its outcome can be valid for further 5 years instead of being co-terminus with the original validity. This would obviate the need to undertake sun set review and avoid multiplicity of work causing strain on existing shortage of human resource. This emanates from Article 11.

 

Source: Manual Of Operating Practices For Trade Remedy Investigations