Anti-dumping duty cannot be levied for the gap between provisional and final notifications where retroactive effect is claimed.

Anti-dumping duty could not be levied for the interregnum between expiry of a provisional notification and the later final notification made effective from an earlier date. The legal position was treated as settled by binding Supreme Court authority on the same issue, under which such retroactive levy for the gap period was not sustainable. On that basis, the demand for duty covering the interregnum was held to be unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether anti-dumping duty could be levied for the interregnum period between the provisional notification and the later final notification.

Analysis: The dispute concerned the levy of anti-dumping duty on imports made after the expiry of the provisional notification and before the final notification that made the duty effective from an earlier date. The Tribunal noted that the point stood settled by the binding Supreme Court ruling on the same legal question, under which such levy for the interregnum period was not sustainable.

Conclusion: Anti-dumping duty for the interregnum period could not be levied, and the impugned demand was unsustainable in law.

---