Article in this March 2015 issue of International Trade Amicus seeks to analyze whether the time period for completing a mid-term or sunset review can be extended beyond the statutory time period of 12 months, and whether such extension is in consonance with the Act and AD Rules. Considering that the issue is critical both from the standpoint of the exporter as well as the domestic industry, the author is of the view that it will be appropriate for the Designated Authority to issue a Public Notice clarifying the timelines applicable for completing a sunset review as well as a midterm review.
This month’s issues of this newsletter highlights news like issuance of reports by WTO panels in the disputes brought by Japan and European Union, regarding China’s imposition of anti-dumping duties on high-performance stainless steel seamless tubes. In another dispute involving China, US has notified WTO Secretariat of a request for consultations with China regarding certain measures that allegedly provide export-contingent subsidies to enterprises in several industrial sectors.
Ratio decidendi part of this Amicus covers Order by CESTAT Anti-dumping Bench upholding exclusion of unreliable and temporary exports from the sunset review. Another interesting order discussed is from US CIT. It notes that where a rate based on adverse inferences is derived from secondary information, the Department of Commerce (DOC) must support the rate by demonstrating that the information has some basis in the commercial reality of the exporter during the period of review.March, 2015/Issue-46