Anti-dumping duty

Explanation

Statement 1 is correct. In India's anti-dumping architecture, the DGTR (under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry) is the investigating authority that determines whether dumping has occurred and caused injury, and issues a recommendation. However, the actual imposition of the duty is done by the Ministry of Finance through a customs notification — a deliberate separation of the investigative and executive functions. Statement 2 is correct. Under the WTO's Anti-Dumping Agreement (Article VI of GATT 1994), three conditions must be met simultaneously before anti-dumping duties can be imposed: (i) dumping must be established (i.e., the export price is below normal value in the home market); (ii) the domestic industry must have suffered or be threatened with material injury; and (iii) a causal link must exist between the dumping and the injury. A finding of dumping in isolation does not authorise the imposition of such duties. Statement 3 is incorrect. Anti-dumping duties are explicitly permitted under the WTO framework as a lawful trade-remedy exception; they are not violations of the MFN principle. The WTO's Anti-Dumping Agreement (supplementing GATT Article VI) is precisely the multilateral instrument that regulates and legitimises these measures among member states. While the targeted, country-specific nature of anti-dumping duties does deviate from normal MFN application, the WTO framework expressly sanctions this deviation when the procedural and substantive conditions (dumping + material injury + causation) are met. Such duties are not automatically subject to dispute settlement proceedings — a complainant country must separately initiate a challenge.

Explanation

All three pairs are correctly matched. First, the DGTR (Directorate General of Trade Remedies), which functions under the Commerce Ministry, is the designated body that conducts anti-dumping investigations in India — it can be initiated either on application by domestic producers or suo motu (on its own initiative) in sectors where fragmented industries lack capacity to file applications. Second, while DGTR conducts the investigation and recommends the quantum of duty, it is the Finance Ministry that takes the final call on whether to impose anti-dumping duty and at what level — this division of roles (investigation vs. imposition) is a critical structural feature of India's trade-remedy architecture. Third, anti-dumping duties are imposed under the multilateral regime of the WTO, which provides the legal basis and permissibility criteria (material injury determination, causation, etc.) for member countries to levy such duties as a countermeasure against injurious dumping. All three mappings reflect established institutional and legal arrangements.

Explanation

Both statements correctly describe the Indian anti-dumping framework. The DGTR (earlier known as the Directorate General of Anti-Dumping and Allied Duties) functions as the designated authority under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and conducts investigations into alleged dumping and resulting injury to domestic industry. Its role is recommendatory — it recommends the duty after a formal investigation, but the final notification imposing the duty is issued by the Central Government (Ministry of Finance). This two-step process — DGTR recommends, government notifies — is a core feature of the mechanism. The second statement captures the standard WTO definition of dumping from Article VI of GATT/the Anti-Dumping Agreement: dumping occurs when the export price is below the 'normal value', which is typically the price charged in the exporting country's home market. This is precisely the basis on which the investigation in the present case was initiated — Malaysian and Thai manufacturers were alleged to be selling gloves in India below the prices prevailing in their own or international markets.