Section 17 in The Customs Tariff (Transitional Product Specific Safeguard Duty) Rules, 2002
17. Review.
(1)The Director General shall, from time to time, review the need for continued imposition of the safeguard duty imposed under section 8C of the Act and shall, if he is satisfied on the basis of information received by him that -(i)such safeguard duty is necessary to prevent or remedy "market disruption", recommend to the Central Government for the continued imposition of that duty;(ii)there is no justification for the continued imposition of such safeguard duty, recommend to the Central Government for its withdrawal:Provided that where the period of imposition of such safeguard duty exceeds three years, the Director General shall review the situation not later than the mid-term of such imposition, and, if appropriate, recommend for withdrawal of such safeguard duty or for the variation of that duty.(2)Any review initiated under sub-rule (1) shall be concluded within a period not exceeding 8 months from the date of initiation of such review or within such extended period as the Central Government may allow.(3)The provisions of rules 5, 6, 7 and 11 shall mutatis mutandis apply in the case of review.Annexure(See rule 8)(1)In the investigation to determine whether increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause "market disruption" to a domestic industry, the Director General shall evaluate all relevant factors of an objective and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of that industry, in particular, the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the article concerned in absolute and relative terms, the share of the domestic market taken by increased imports, changes in the level of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilization, profits and losses, and employment.(2)The determination referred to in paragraph (1) shall not be made unless the investigation demonstrates, on the basis of objective evidence, the existence of the causal link between increased imports of the article concerned and "market disruption" or threat thereof. When factors other than increased imports are causing "market disruption" to the domestic industry at the same time, such "market disruption" shall not be attributed to increased imports. In such case, the Director General may refer the complaint to the authority for anti-dumping or countervailing duty investigations, as appropriate.
