Retrospective anti-dumping duty: definitive levy was treated as covering the provisional-duty period under binding Tribunal precedent.

Definitive anti-dumping duty under Notification No. 73/2003 was treated as relating back to the date of the provisional anti-dumping duty, so the interregnum import period was also covered by the levy. The commentary notes that the Tribunal relied on an earlier three-member Bench ruling holding that definitive anti-dumping duty can be imposed retrospectively in accordance with the notification. It further states that the three-member Anti-dumping Bench's view is binding on other Benches, leaving no room to reject retrospective recovery on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Notification No. 73/2003 dated 01.05.2003 could be levied retrospectively from the date of the provisional anti-dumping duty and thus cover the period of import.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of the notification imposing definitive anti-dumping duty and whether it expressly authorised levy from an earlier date. The Tribunal noted that an earlier three-member Bench had already held that definitive anti-dumping duty relates back to the date of provisional duty and that the interregnum period is also covered by the levy. The Tribunal further held that the view of the three-member Anti-dumping Bench is binding on other Benches.

Conclusion: The levy was held to operate retrospectively in accordance with the notification and the binding earlier decision, and the contention against retrospective recovery failed.

---