Anti-dumping duty during the interregnum period was referred to a Larger Bench because CESTAT views were conflicting.

Conflicting CESTAT views on whether anti-dumping duty can be levied, imposed, or collected during the gap between expiry of a provisional notification and commencement of a definitive notification warranted reference to a Larger Bench. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive levy issue on merits; it only found the divergence in precedent sufficient to require authoritative resolution by a Larger Bench. The order is interlocutory and operates solely to place the anti-dumping duty question before a larger forum for determination.

---

---

Issues: Whether anti-dumping duty could be imposed and collected during the interregnum period between expiry of provisional anti-dumping duty and commencement of definitive anti-dumping duty, and whether the conflicting views on the point required reference to a Larger Bench.

Analysis: The matter concerned levy of anti-dumping duty on imports made after expiry of the provisional notification and before the definitive notification came into force. The Tribunal noticed that different Benches had taken divergent views on whether duty was payable during this interregnum period. In view of the conflict, the issue was considered fit for determination by a Larger Bench to resolve which view on levy, imposition, and collection of anti-dumping duty was correct.

Conclusion: No final determination on the merits of the levy was recorded. The issue was referred for consideration by a Larger Bench.

Final Conclusion: The order is interlocutory in nature and merely directs constitution of a Larger Bench for authoritative resolution of the anti-dumping duty question.

Ratio Decidendi: Where conflicting tribunal decisions exist on the levy of anti-dumping duty during the interregnum period, the matter should be placed before a Larger Bench for resolution.

---