Anti-dumping duty for the gap between provisional and final notifications cannot be sustained when binding precedent applies.

Anti-dumping duty could not be demanded for imports made during the gap between a provisional notification and the later final notification fixing the levy. The Tribunal followed binding Supreme Court authority and an identical prior decision, finding no distinguishing facts or contrary precedent to justify a different result. On that basis, the differential anti-dumping duty for the interregnum period was held unsustainable and set aside.

---

---

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

Analysis: The dispute concerned demand of differential anti-dumping duty on imports made during the gap between the provisional anti-dumping notification and the later notification finalising it. The issue was treated as settled by the Supreme Court decision followed by the Tribunal in an identical matter, and no distinguishing feature or contrary authority was shown to depart from that position.

Conclusion: The demand for anti-dumping duty for the interregnum period was not sustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded because the impugned demand based on the gap period between the two notifications could not be sustained in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Anti-dumping duty cannot be demanded for the interregnum period where the levy is sought to operate only on the basis of a later finalising notification and the issue is governed by the binding Supreme Court ruling followed in identical facts.

---