Anti-dumping duty demand fails when the underlying notification is quashed and the quashing order remains unstayed.

Anti-dumping duty could not be enforced where the foundational final notification had already been quashed and that quashing order had not been stayed. The Tribunal held that, because the earlier decision found no established injury to the domestic industry and set aside the notification, the notification ceased to operate and could not support any continuing demand. The appellate authority was correct in following the unstayed quashing order, and the Revenue's position that the notification still remained in force was rejected. Consequently, the duty demand based on the quashed notification was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether anti-dumping duty could be sustained when the foundational notification had been quashed and the quashing order had not been stayed.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the earlier order had examined the validity of the anti-dumping duty in detail and had held that the designated authority had not established injury to the domestic industry from the imports. On that basis, the final notification was quashed. As the quashing order had not been stayed by the High Court, it continued to operate and the appellate authority was right in following it. Once the notification stood quashed, the contention that it still remained in force could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The demand based on the quashed notification could not survive, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand founded on a notification that has been quashed and remains unstayed cannot be sustained by the authorities.

---