Anti-dumping duty appeals need a statutory levy determination; recommendatory final findings alone do not create appellate jurisdiction.

Final findings in a sunset review are only recommendatory, while the power to impose or continue anti-dumping duty rests with the Central Government through a statutory notification under the Customs Tariff Act and the Anti-Dumping Rules. In the absence of any notification or order determining the levy, there is no appealable determination under Section 9C. An RTI communication or internal file note cannot create appellate jurisdiction or substitute for the required statutory act. The appeals were therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether appeals lie under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 against the Designated Authority's final findings recommending non-continuation of anti-dumping duty, where the Central Government has not issued any notification or order determining the levy.

Analysis: The appeals challenged only the Designated Authority's final findings in sunset review proceedings. The final findings were only recommendatory in nature. The statutory scheme places the power to impose or continue anti-dumping duty with the Central Government under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and Rule 18 of the Anti-Dumping Rules contemplates issuance of a notification in the official gazette. In the absence of any notification or order by the Department of Revenue determining the levy, there was no appealable determination. An RTI communication or internal file note could not substitute for a statutory notification or create appellate jurisdiction under Section 9C.

Conclusion: The appeals were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed.

---