Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995 — investigation, duty and review guide
Current 2026 investigation workflow, evidence architecture and judicial controls
Reviewed by CA Nikhil Gupta · Updated 5 October 2026
2-minute view
The Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 remain the principal procedural code for Indian anti-dumping investigations. They govern initiation, evidence, confidentiality, preliminary/final findings, injury analysis, duty recommendation and review mechanisms.
Legal architecture
The Tariff Act section supplies the statutory power; the Rules supply the investigation machinery; DGTR creates the evidentiary record and findings; the Ministry of Finance issues the fiscal measure where the law requires a duty notification. These stages should not be collapsed. A DGTR initiation is not a duty, and a final finding is not automatically identical to the customs notification ultimately collected at the border.
As of October 2026, DGTR operates the SETU unified filing portal and maintains case-specific pages for initiations, questionnaires, registered interested parties, hearings, disclosure statements and findings. The June 2026 Compendium should be the starting point for rule text, followed by later notifications/trade notices and the live case docket.
Procedure map
- 1. Original investigation
- 2. Provisional duty
- 3. Disclosure and hearing
- 4. Final findings
- 5. Mid-term review
- 6. Sunset review
- 7. New shipper review
- 8. Anti-circumvention
- 9. Anti-absorption
At each stage, preserve both confidential and non-confidential treatment correctly. The investigation record should separately identify data source, period of investigation, injury period, product scope, interested-party standing, verification history and the calculation methodology used.
Case law
| Authority | Proposition / use | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Designated Authority v. Haldor Topsoe A/S Supreme Court, 2000 | Anti-dumping determination must follow the statutory investigation architecture; normal value/export price/dumping analysis cannot be replaced by an ad hoc methodology outside the Rules. | Judgment |
| Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority Supreme Court, 2006 | Anti-dumping requires reasoned determination of dumping, injury and causal link; non-injurious price and landed-value methodology must operate consistently with the statutory Rules. | Judgment |
| Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority Supreme Court, 2011 | The Designated Authority performs quasi-judicial functions and the investigation procedure carries enforceable natural-justice obligations, including a meaningful hearing by the decision-maker. | Judgment |
| Union of India v. Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. Supreme Court, 2017 | Sunset review under Section 9A(5) asks whether expiry is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury; the review is not simply a repetition of the original investigation. | Judgment |
| Commissioner of Customs v. G.M. Exports Supreme Court, 2015 | Anti-dumping provisions should be interpreted consistently with India’s WTO obligations where statutory text permits; the decision is central to retrospective/gap-period questions under Section 9A. | Judgment |
Worked example
A domestic producer alleging dumped imports should not start with “desired duty rate”. It should define the PUC and like article, establish standing, build transaction-level export-price/normal-value evidence, quantify injury and non-attribution, and use the DGTR procedure to create a reviewable record.
Evidence checklist
- Product under consideration / product control number methodology.
- Domestic industry standing and production data.
- Import volume/value source and transaction-level data where required.
- Price-effect and injury indicator schedules.
- Causation and non-attribution analysis.
- Questionnaire responses and deficiency letters.
- Verification exhibits and disclosure comments.
- Final finding, Ministry of Finance notification and review/sunset calendar.
Professional traps
- Using an outdated rule compilation rather than the current DGTR Compendium plus later amendments.
- Assuming investigation initiation means a levy is already payable.
- Ignoring product scope/PCN disputes that can change the entire measure.
- Mixing dumping, subsidy and safeguard standards.
- Missing the separate Ministry of Finance notification collected by Customs.
- Failing to calendar review/sunset/extension deadlines.
Primary-source trail
| Instrument | Authority | Why it matters | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| DGTR Compendium updated to 16 June 2026 | DGTR | Current consolidated trade-remedy laws/rules | Official/source route |
| DGTR case repository | DGTR | Current investigations, findings and notices | Official/source route |
| SETU | DGTR | Electronic filing and case management | Official/source route |
| Customs Tariff Act, 1975 | India Code | Statutory anchor — Section 9A | Official/source route |