Anti-dumping duty continuation depends on a timely notification and uninterrupted levy; a lapsed duty cannot be revived after review.

Continuation or extension of anti-dumping duty under the Customs Tariff Act requires a valid notification issued while the original levy is still in force. Initiation of a sunset review does not by itself extend the duty, and a notification issued after the levy has expired cannot revive a lapsed duty. A further five-year reimposition is also unsustainable where there is a break in continuity, because the statutory scheme requires an uninterrupted levy through the review process. The governing principle is that the power to continue anti-dumping duty is conditional, time-bound, and dependent on existing legal continuity.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether initiation of a Sunset Review before expiry of the original five-year anti-dumping duty automatically continued the duty for the review period; (ii) whether a notification issued after expiry of the original levy could validly extend the duty for one year pending review; (iii) whether a further notification imposing anti-dumping duty for five years after a break in the levy was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether initiation of a Sunset Review before expiry of the original five-year anti-dumping duty automatically continued the duty for the review period.

Analysis: Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the review framework under the Anti-Dumping Rules make the continuation of duty during pendency of review dependent upon an operative governmental act. The power to continue duty pending review is expressed in enabling terms and is linked to a valid subsisting levy. The statutory scheme does not create an automatic extension merely because a review has been initiated.

Conclusion: Negative. Initiation of review by itself did not automatically extend the anti-dumping duty.

Issue (ii): whether a notification issued after expiry of the original levy could validly extend the duty for one year pending review.

Analysis: The second proviso to Section 9A(5) permits continuation of duty only where the existing levy is carried forward without a break and the Government forms the requisite opinion before the original levy lapses. A levy that has already expired cannot be revived by a later notification. The court treated the post-expiry notification as an attempt to extend a dead levy, which the statute does not permit.

Conclusion: Negative. The notification issued after expiry of the original levy was invalid.

Issue (iii): whether a further notification imposing anti-dumping duty for five years after a break in the levy was sustainable.

Analysis: A fresh five-year extension under the first proviso to Section 9A(5) presupposes continuity of an existing duty through the review period. Where there were intervening gaps in the levy, the protective chain was broken and the subsequent notification could not rest on the earlier levy. Rule 18A(1) could not override the statutory time structure in Section 9A(5), and the notification had to conform to the statutory continuity requirement.

Conclusion: Negative. The five-year reimposition after the break in levy was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The anti-dumping notifications failed because the statutory power to continue or extend duty requires an existing levy, timely exercise of the power, and uninterrupted continuity through the review process.

Ratio Decidendi: Continuation or extension of anti-dumping duty under Section 9A(5) is not automatic and can be effected only by a valid notification issued while the original levy is still in force, since a lapsed levy cannot be revived after a break in continuity.

---